Well, with the death of Jacob Robida, the Massachusetts who injured three people in a New Bedford, Massachusetts gay bar, then killed a woman and a cop in Arkansas, has died from acute lead poisoning, I heave a hearty sigh of relief. But the repercussions of this little shit’s hissy-fit will reverberate for some time to come.
One that’s particularly easy to predict is that the Massachusetts legislature will use it to pass even more gun-control laws. After all, whenever given the opportunity, you can count on that bunch to act in the most stupid, most tyrannical, most greedy fashion possible when given half a chance.
It’s not been stated yet, but I’m willing to bet serious money that Robida’s possession of the gun he used in Puzzles was already illegal. He was 18, with a spotty record — and I’m certain his local police chief would have refused him a permit.
On the other hand, had the bartender or another employee been armed, there’s a chance that Robida’s spree would have ended there, with only one dead — Robida himself. An innocent cop and a maybe-innocent woman would still be alive today.
But that doesn’t matter to Massachusetts’ lawmakers. This was a GUN crime, so all GUNS must be punished. Never mind that all the prior laws they passed didn’t keep Robida from getting his hand on one — we must make sure even more law-abiding people can’t have guns. Because, after all, self-defense is SO 20th Century.
I’d love to be wrong on this. I’d welcome signs of sanity in my neighbor to the south. But I don’t think it’s gonna happen this time. The gun-grabbers have too many tempting elements here — victimized gays, a dead police officer, a clear hate crime, and for god’s sake a genuine psycho neo-Nazi. I’m sure they’re already salivating, Pavlov-like, while they craft their new measures designed to “keep another horrible incident like this from ever happening again.”
What about a hatchet ban, then?
You may very well be right, but Lordy you’ve sure got your panties in a knot about what might happen. Ya might grab an ulcer that way.
Well, FTLOG, when the story was still fresh and Robida was still on the run, they were already talking about more “hate crime” legislation. So it’s not much of a stretch for Jay Tea to assume more gun laws, especially in Massachusetts.
Look, I’m all about ridding the world of death-dealing weapons and all, and I want to help. I recently learned we live in a sick country where you can just walk in off the street and buy a double-bit axe, no questions asked. And I know about all those cheap imports, the “Monday Morning Specials” which are only good for chopping kindling and al-Jazeera videos. Now I hear there are “lumberjack camps” (yeah, sure) in the great Northwest where “lumberjacks” (ever notice how many of them have those Aryan names? Coincidence?) go to “chop wood”. Riiiiight.
So I want to do my part to help. That’s why I’m proposing a Massachusetts hatchet buy-back. We could rid the state of those demon adze’s, and also turn some money back to The People.
And then maybe the state could use all those terrible weapons and make a wondeful statue. How about doing a casting of a Mapplethorpe photo? That would defeat all those Haters With Hatchets out there in Normalville. There’s something so liberating to think that a hatchet which could have been a deadly weapon in some nazi homophobe’s hand, could instead become the butt of the bullwhip sticking in the rectum of a leatherman in a Mapplethorpe-inspired statue. Anybody else?
Like the officer who was murdered I am an Arkansan, and I also happen to have a concealed weapons permit, so I am doubly interested in this story. I’m not sure that Mass. even has a concealed carry program, but if they do even Arkansas won’t let you carry in a bar. So, assuming that Mass. law is at least as strict as Akransas law, he was already in violation of the laws that cover firearms. The real point here is that this guy was an axe-wielding, cop killing, homophobic, neo-nazi (truth IS stranger than fiction). So it wouldn’t matter how strict the law was, he would have still found a way to hurt people. All of that is assuming that the legislators of Mass. actually cared about protecting the public, instead of protecting their offices.
I suppose that until we know how this choad got his hands on that particular gun, we won’t know whether the current laws in Mass. are up to snuff or not and thus probably can’t presume to know what kind of new laws will be proposed.
Remember that 99.9% of all guns used in all crimes entered the stream of commerce legitimately at some point. I have no problem with law abiding citizens buying guns. I have a problem with them selling them to whoever at gun shows and such. I don’t like how quickly guns fall off the map completely.
If you need a gun to feel safe or have fun or whetever, fine. I think the second amendment gives to the right to do that. What I don’t think it gives you the right to do is buy and sell guns indiscriminately. Call me crazy.
If it were up to me you would have to have a national gun license (like a drivers license) that shows you are sane, literate, sighted, and paid up on fines and prison time owed. This license would be required to purchase and register any gun or any piece of ammunition.
This still leaves plenty of room for you and I. It just makes it more difficult (though of course not impossible) for psychos and felons, which I think is the point.
“This license would be required to purchase and register any gun or any piece of ammunition.”
And yet those with criminal intents would either fake a license or simply get them through the same illegal channels they get now.
‘Cept I’d have to pay some asinine tax each year while Joe Criminal gets to buy his without a license.
Pardon me as I don’t jump for joy with your idea.
Plus, now you’re saying some unelected bureaucrat gets to decide what defines ‘responsible enough to own a gun’. 200 hours of gun safety classes each year? Community service? Again, the only thing licenses would do is slow down those who already follow the law. Criminals don’t obey laws. Doesn’t affect them.
I cannot understand why that point is impossible for so many people to understand.
Jay, 21+ for handguns in MA, 18+ (or with parental permission) for long guns.
I’m not sure that Mass. even has a concealed carry program…
Massachusetts does allow for concealed carry/pistol permits, but licenses to do so are issued at the discretion of the chief of police in the applicant’s town/city of residence. Some police chiefs will issue unrestricted licenses for CCW. Others will issue restricetd licenses allwing for target/sporting use only. Others have a policy of issuing no pistoil permits whatsoever (unless, you’re good friends with th echief, or a big $$$ donor to the mayor’s campaign.
but if they do even Arkansas won’t let you carry in a bar. So, assuming that Mass. law is at least as strict as Akransas law, he was already in violation of the laws that cover firearms.
MA law does not explicitly prohibit carrying in a bar, but if you are discovered to be doing so, the chief of police could deem you “unsuitable to be licensed” and yank your license.
“On the other hand, had the bartender or another employee been armed, there’s a chance that Robida’s spree would have ended there, with only one dead — Robida himself. An innocent cop and a maybe-innocent woman would still be alive today.”
Ted Kennedy’s worst nightmare: law-abiding citizens using scary guns to defend themselves and their community.
My coverage of this horrible incident can be found here:
Life Inside the Victim Disarmament Zone
Reactions to New Bedford Bar Assault
Breaking News – Suspect in Custody
Consider This a Tax Cut
Wildly off topic, but if someone can get a harsher sentancing for a homophobic attack that gets labeled a “hate crime”…because they would in this case hate gays…could a stalker get a lighter sentance if he contended it was only a “love crime”?
I’m a public defender in West Virginia. We have some of the most open laws in the country concerning carrying firearms. You must have a license to carry a concealed handgun, but can carry an openly visible firearm in most places. There are restrictions on loaded guns in vehicles for obvious reasons. Felony convictions and some misdemeaners result in the loss of the right to possess any firearm. We have one of the lowest crime/murder rates in the nation. I have never had a criminal who needed a firearm ever report any trouble aquiring them. The police I work with universally oppose gun restrictions because they do not serve to make it any more difficult for those willing to circumvent the law to obtain a firearm to do so.
But we need more and more powerful guns for today’s super animals – like the flying squirrel, and the electric eel.
Gun laws are generally rather silly. We had a serial killer (hitchhikers) in my town who operated over a 20 year period. How did he get the gun? He got his girlfriend to get it for him. No state line nor waiting period really helps out there. However, I’d still like them banned/punished as much as possible.
Well, here in Texas, “you can’t carry in a bar” only gets a laugh. Believe it or not (and I have to admit that I don’t know if it’s still true) a person w/ a C/C license could carry a gun into the public gallery in the State Capitol. Now, some would say that that’s the best target practice in the state – politicians. Note to Washington wiretapers: I don’t feel that way, of course.
There are restrictions on loaded guns in vehicles for obvious reasons.
Care to elaborate on those “obvious” reason?
Anyone willing to ignore the laws against shooting people for no reason is highly unlikely to abide by a law that says his gun can’t be loaded in the car.
For the rest of us not inclined to shoot people for no reason, such a law is hardly necessary.
There was an incident in Boston a year ago last August where a 16-year-old kid was arrested for shooting a semi-automatic .40-caliber handgun in a park near his house.
Let’s play “Count the number of violations of MA state law there”.
What was the response from our fearless police commissioner and mayor?
From the Boston Globe:
The police sit-down with community leaders came after meetings between Mayor Thomas M. Menino and Boston Police Commissioner Kathleen M. O’Toole.
In the past couple of days, the two have met repeatedly to discuss ways of limiting the number of guns on the street, O’Toole said, adding that officials are also considering ways to tighten gun laws in Massachusetts, specifically concerning where guns may be carried — such as parks.
As if what that 16-year-old was all perfectly legal, and this is some kind of loophole that needs to be closed.
These people are insane.
Another law that would be obeyed only by those not responsible the shootings in the streets and parks of Boston.
(sorry ’bout that link-dump earlier, Jay, but this topic gets me riled up)
Sounds to me like they might need hate crime and gun control legislation in Arkansas, not Massachusettes.
Has anybody but me noticed that the easier it is to buy a gun in a state, the more Psycotic crackers live there. Why couldn’t have stayed at home a shot some faggots.
The only thing that could have made this more of a cliche is if he’d been from Idaho.
No, but I notice people who are incapable of understanding written words.
The killer wasn’t from Arkansas.
Using your logic in your case, I guess that computers are easy to buy in whatever hell hole that you call home….
“Criminals don’t obey laws. Doesn’t affect them.”
I hate this kind of simplistic nonsense. As if we live on an island of criminals and non-criminals where criminals always break the law and non-criminals never do. Most “criminals” obey the law 90% of the time. The point of gun control is (and I am going to say this very slowly and clearly) TO MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE FOR FELONS AND CHILDREN TO GET THEIR HANDS ON THEM. Period.
No one suggests gun control is the cure all. We just want to make it more difficult for felons, kids, and aliens to get them. What could possibly be wrong with that. With a permit system, you can lean on not only the “criminals” who use them, but on the distributors who sell them to the unlicensed persons and the individuals who sell ammunition to unlicensed person.
Remember, essentially every gun and bullet ever used by a murder or thief entered the stream of commerce legitimately at some point. Thieves don’t often steal guns from the factory. They are sold and resold and resold. Registration can give pause to those who resell.
Will it be slightly more difficult for you to get a gun? Yes. Deal. Driving a car is a pain. That is how we minimize the number of children, blind people, and unlicensed drivers.
Heck, I don’t really like taking my shoes off when I get on a plane. But I do it. I do it because it helps keep us safe (though by no means guarantees our safety). Same thing.
Owning guns should be just like driving cars. Register them. Notify the state of transfer of ownership. Get a license. Renew the license. Carry insurance. It is a pain in the ass. So why do we do it? Because cars are dangerous. And so are guns.
If you don’t trust society to regulate your gun use, why should society trust you to use them?
Remember, essentially every gun and bullet ever used by a murder or thief entered the stream of commerce legitimately at some point.
Same with knives. And Britain is actually seriously talking about regulating pointed kitchen knives. Presumably cricket bats are next.
Their public is completely disarmed and actually banned from defending themselves (they are told to run away and call the police, and not to respond even if assaulted!). And their crime rate is skyrocketing. And a large percentage of burglaries happen when people are present, because the criminals know there is nothing to fear. They’re much lower in percentage here.
LJD, Hatchets have uses other than killing people. Guns don’t. Hatchets aren’t the most effective thing you can use to kill a person. Guns are. If hatchets were as dangerous as guns, we wouldn’t have invented guns.
Well, the the engineering problems with creating a man portable repeating hatchet was harder than coming up with guns.
seattle slough wrote (February 6, 2006 06:09 PM):
“No one suggests gun control is the cure all. We just want to make it more difficult for felons, kids, and aliens to get them.”
I think we all agree with this. The problem many of us have, however, is that all the efforts society has made to make it harder for criminals to get guns has simply made it harder for law-abiding citizens to get them. We expect Massachusetts – already a restrictive state – to be even more restrictive in the wake of this crime. Did their existing laws stop this clown? No. What makes them think more laws might have?
Further, many of us do not trust (leftie) politicians, and so we do not support otherwise reasonable-sounding measures such as licensing, registration, etc, because we know from the experience of others that this is the first step toward confiscation.
“Remember, essentially every gun and bullet ever used by a murder or thief entered the stream of commerce legitimately at some point. Thieves don’t often steal guns from the factory.”
Very true: They steal from law-abiding citizens, or they get somebody without a record to buy for them. In other words, they break the existing laws. Why do you think that additional laws would stop them?
Your argument sounds like the leftie hysteria over the alleged “gun show loophole”, as if every gun show in America is a mecca for thugs and hoodlums with banners posted “Free admission for three-time offenders” and “Buy one machinegun and get two Saturday Night Specials for free!”
Go talk to a gunstore owner or anybody who has an FFL and ask them about BATF audits… and penalties. Gun dealers are already heavily regulated, and the vast majority are honest and have no more interest than you or I in selling a gun to a criminal.
“Most ‘criminals’ obey the law 90% of the time.”
Yes. It’s that other 10% of the time that bothers us.
The vast majority of gun owners obey the law 100% of the time. Why should we be punished?
That was the funniest thing I’ve read in a while!
….I mean the part about “turning some money back to the people”. I almost peed my pants.
“I hate this kind of simplistic nonsense.”
Well, it’ goes along nicely with your simplistic nonsense.
“The point of gun control is (and I am going to say this very slowly and clearly) TO MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE FOR FELONS AND CHILDREN TO GET THEIR HANDS ON THEM. Period.”
Yes, you have a perfectly valid point there and a totally effective one too. Look at the drug laws. Impossible for you and me to purchase recreational drugs, and there is currently ZERO drug usage by children and felons.
Oh…..wait….. That’s odd. Now that I think about it, we do have a drug usage problem even though it is illegal.
I own guns. Loaded, and in the house. One is a .357 Magnum. I also have 2 daughters, a 3 year old and a 6 month old. I love them more than life itself. They will always be taught (just like I was when I was a child) about the dangers of guns. When they are old enough, just like me as a child, they will be allowed to go to the gun range and learn hands on safety. No gunlocks or licenses or background checks can make me love my kids any more and I keep the weapons out of their reach because I don’t want them to get hurt.
You’re notion that gun laws will somehow magically lower the number of guns available to kids and felons is laughable. There are millions of firearms already out there. They will not magically register themselves and plenty of people, myself included, would refuse to do so. So there still would be no way to track most firearms.
In your oh so long diatribe there is one extremely glaring problem. You imply that you believe that if society would simply regulate objects then everything would be just honky dory. Well why don’t you consider punishing the criminals more harshly? Wouldn’t that be more of a help to alleviate the problem than punishing the law abiding?
Guns are THE MOST REGULATED product in our country.
You said that “criminals don’t obey laws” is simplistic nonsense. You also said that the purpose of gun control laws was to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. Sorry but that is “simplistic nonsense”.
Take a look at the federal ban on “saturday night specials” that went into affect not long ago. Do you hear about politicians or gun control advocates praising how well that worked? The answer is, no you don’t. Why? Well the reason is simple, no more “saturday night specials” okay we (the criminal class) will just start using better weapons. This meant that the number of shootings with more powerful weapons increased tenfold thereby causing MORE deaths because the “saturday night specials” were, generally speaking, a more survivable wound.
The only purpose served by gun control laws is that it makes people “feel” better about the death of someone they didn’t even know.
The fact of the matter is that cities and states where gun control is most prohibitive have much higher crime rates in general. Cities and states where gun control is not restrictive have much lower crime rates in general.
Can somebody address the back story of why this particular psycho picked that particular bar, and those particluar patrons? If you truly believe it was a random act of a random nut-job, I know an Bunny selling a bridge you might be interested in.
The biggest problem I have with Seattle Slough’s analogy re drivers’ licensing is that it suspension and revocation of a driver’s license is a notoriously unsuccessful punishment. This article gives some statistics on how high percentages of fatal accidents involve unlicensed drivers, and states that as many as 70 percent of all drivers who have lost their licenses continue to drive. Comparisons to gun control are quite apt at this point.
If the bartender had a gun, it would be just aslikely that even more people could have died as a result of the shootout.
In response to “guns being more efficient” for killing people. I would beg to differ. If the criminal had used a broadsword, katana, machete, felling axe, or applied his hatched effectively, the victims would of likely died at the bar. It is hard to render first-aid for a lopped off head, or to stanch several points of massive bleeding.
If the bartender had a gun, the odds are, that if used, just the perpetrator would of been killed. There is very little statistical evidence of bystanders being hit by responsible persons using firearms to defend themselves or others. Gan-bangers spraying a neighborhood indiscriminentaly don’t are criminals, not responsible persons.
Lets move on from the weapons used. What about the criminal?
The criminal was not initially suicidal. He knew his victims, where to find them, the odds of them being armed (he also attacked from behind) and the odds of being stopped. He had developed contingency plans (hatchet and hand-gun) and had a reasonably succesful escape plan.
Even though it is hind-sight and there will be no trial, has anybody worked out real motive? Generically hating gays is simplistic and the criminals behavior shows specific targeting.
“If the bartender had a gun, it would be just as likely that even more people could have died as a result of the shootout.”
Ah, yes. The age-old adage that it’s far better to cower and pray in the face of evil than to stand up and defeat it.
Granted, if the bartender had a gun, AND DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO USE IT, then yes, it could have made a bad situation worse.
What is it about handguns that make the gun-control lefties think they’re some kind of highly sophisticated, magical objects that we mere mortals can never hope to understand how to operate properly?
If a person intent of inflicting grievous bodily harm enters a room of unarmed victims, he’ll tend to be more successful in his efforts than he would be if his victims possessed the ability to thwart his violent intentions.
So, yes, you’re right, lazerlou:
“…even more people could have died as a result of the shootout.”
The “more people” in question being the subhuman piece of fecal scrapings that went into that bar with the intentions of hacking up its patrons with a hatchet.
That would have been just awful, wouldn’t it? Just ask the friends of Officer Jim Sell whom the aforementioned piece of human trash gunned down in cold blood, as a result of making it out of that bar unscathed.
ARMED SELF-DEFENSE WORKS.
“Cower and pray” can never be the mantra of a free people.
But, then again, welcome to Massachusetts.
I don’t believe that even the most well trained gun owner has a level head and perect aim when faced with a real life psycho. You are much more confident than I am about that. People miss, especially in stressful situations. No amount of training prepares you for some psych pulling a gun out of nowhere and starting to shoot. What I am sure of is that nobody would have died of gunshot wounds had there been no guns to use.
I’m also sure of the link between a confused young man full of self haterd that he projects onto others and his desire to kill. That neo-nazi’s hate gays should tell volumes about the source of anti-gay political action in our country. So much for personal freedom and live and let live. Shoudlnt you winggers be extolling this young man who stood up to the homos and said not in my country? ISn’t that what you wingers are all about? Taking the law into your own hands when the government becomes opressive, like the Supreme Court of Mass? He was just protecting his way of life from the evils of homosexuality (and gun control)
Love you ignorant, fearful hicks! Rock on.
And Bruce, it is telling what great lenths you go to to distance your own views from this “subhuman piece of fecal scrapings” views. Thou dost portest too much, methinks. No amount of name calling changes the fact that gay hating, gun owning right wingers are one misfiring neuron short of become hate filled serial killers. “I’m not a criminal” “I don’t hat gays I just want my government to actively prohibit them from marrying and having sex”
Ah, the tolerance, understanding, education and class of the modern left… no leap of logic too great, no hyperbole too extreme.
“Guns are THE MOST REGULATED product in our country.”
No they aren’t. Automobiles are far more closely regulated. Far more. It isn’t even worth going over in detail. From so called “street legality” to bi-annual emmissions tests, to having lights that illuminate the license plate, cars are actually regulated.
Does it mean no unlicensed person drives a car? No. Can I say with certainty that each law keeps some unlicensed drivers or unsafe cars off the road? Certainly.
“I own guns. Loaded, and in the house. One is a .357 Magnum. I also have 2 daughters, a 3 year old and a 6 month old. I love them more than life itself. They will always be taught (just like I was when I was a child) about the dangers of guns.”
Because 3 year olds have such a firm grasp of their own mortality. I just hope that you keep them as secure as you do the Draino. I have a friend of a friend who lives with the fact that he blew the head off of some kid when they found his daddy’s guns when he was a little boy. Needless to say, that guy is messed up today. Kids make mistakes. Mistakes involving guns often lead to outcomes that are impossible to undo.
The point isn’t to completely solve the problem. It is to make sure that we are doing everything that we can. Just like smoke detectors don’t mean people don’t still die in fires. And airbags don’t mean that people don’t still die in car accidents. We just need to do what we can.
Simply saying it won’t work is just a defeatist attitude. Saying that you would refuse to register your own guns is a ridiculous argument. Fine. Don’t register them. Then we merely pass a law that makes it a felony to possess an unregistered gun. Go for it. That would make you a “criminal.”
Your confiscation fears are a little silly. You have the 2nd amendment. And the 4th amendment. And the 14th. You can already have your guns seized under lots of circumstances. For the most part it is done reasonably with due process. Your slippery slope argument has only Nazi Germany as a model. It simply isn’t compelling.
Were I a responsible gun owner, I would see no problem with a national firearm registry. Is it a hassle? Sure. So is my having to empty my pockets when I go into a court house. I understand that it is for the protection of others by the bad acts of others. But, I understand that sacrifices for safety are worth it.
With gun registry we can do the following:
Punish the non-felon who purchased a gun for a criminal.
Punish the gun owner who carelessly allowed their gun to be stolen in a negligent manner.
Punish the store owner who sold ammunition to the unlicensed gun owner. (in fact you should not be allowed to purchase ammunition for a gun you are not registered as owning.)
Is the cat already out of the bag? Yes. Can it be slowly put back in? Sure.
Lets fix the problem. Not just sit around and say it won’t work or that we are unwilling to do anything or both. The reason our current laws are ineffective is because they vary so greatly from state to state. We need a uniform system that allows responsible gun owners to own and use guns. But that, at the same time, makes it AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE for the bad guys to get them.
Is that really so crazy?
What sort of gun would Jesus carry?
A bearded man of middle eastern appearance carrying a gun.
I guess the big guy would have to go for the AK, just to complete the look.
Of course, if he does decide to walk across the now non-protective oceans,
he’ll be lit up before he sets sandal on American soil.
The majority of gun owners obey the law 100% of the time. But, the majority would become criminals if their guns were outlawed. What does it all mean?
Seriously, I’m okay with you yanks being gun-crazy. I don’t have to live there.
“I don’t believe that even the most well trained gun owner has a level head and perect aim when faced with a real life psycho. You are much more confident than I am about that. People miss, especially in stressful situations. No amount of training prepares you for some psych pulling a gun out of nowhere and starting to shoot.”
Old enough to go to enlist in the military? Or perhaps simply to spend the time to at least master the basics of a skill? I maintain my basic first aid and CPR skills, unfortunately I don’t keep up my lifeguarding ones, but then I probably could afford the few seconds it would take me. Weapons training is no different, less demanding than many of the “peaceful” subtasks listed above and far less dangerous than operating a motor vehicle. Yes, with an unfamiliar weapon, I _might_ miss, far more likely that a dozen other things could happen, like Remo Robida could have dodged the bullet. Otherwise, at pistol engagement ranges, you better have a chicken suit on, because I’ll hit center mass.
Perhaps you are referring to psychological issues? Trivial then (unless the psych issues are yours over guns), simply begin training children to control their emotions in stress situations from an early age. Panic is the top killer in emergency situations.
“What I am sure of is that nobody would have died of gunshot wounds had there been no guns to use.”
What I am sure of is that nobody would have died from Ebola had there been no Ebola to be infected with.
Nice soundbite, relationship to reality considering the guns are already there and one of the first things people do in any situation is arm themselves? I have a better soundbite: God may have created all men, but Col Colt made them equal.
Railroad Stone asks:
“What sort of gun would Jesus carry?”
The answer to that is, of course, a .22. A Luke 22.
“Whosoever among you is without a sidearm, let him sell his coat that he may purchase one.”
Update on story as of 2/8/06:
Robida most likely shot himself. He was a coward to begin with, and he died a coward.
Quite frankly I do not see what all the fuss is about….the fags are still alive…I wish future attackers to have better luck in ridding New Bedford of the fags.
God hates all of you, and as a Muslim it is my right to do away with evil.
My suggestion is to bomb all gay bars, and social activities of gays.
Get them before they spread more aids, and fuck little boys with thier shit covered cocks
I guess hppiness is a Luke-warm gun. 🙂
mitch, get a dog. You need a friend and no human will ever love you.