“Responsible Gun Owners” Are Responsible Until They’re Not; THAT’S The Problem

Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure there are plenty of “responsible gun owners” who genuinely want to be responsible with their guns because they comprehend that guns kill people. And, up to this point, they can claim to have behaved responsibly (as far as we know) because their weapons haven’t hurt anyone. So, yeah — no argument. Those gun owners can claim to have been “responsible gun owners” so far. But that’s as far as their claim of “being responsible” goes. They can’t predict the future. They can’t predict a momentary lapse in judgment or circumstance beyond their control or an unforeseen accident that suddenly converts them from “responsible” to “irresponsible” without them even realizing it’s happening. Yeah, yeah – the same can be said of car ownership. But cars are designed for transportation. Whenever someone kills someone else with their vehicle? That’s the user mis-using the product. Guns are designed from the ground up to send a piece of metal flying through the air into a live target, killing it dead. A person who’s used a gun to kill another person? They’ve used their gun exactly per its design specs.

Even a “responsible gun owner” who’s failed has only failed to be responsible. Their gun did the very thing they bought it to do – whether they admit it or not.

Guns are death machines. I bet if we stopped benignly calling guns “guns” and referred to them only as “death machines” – our national conversation would take on a whole different nature. For starters, it’d be honest for once. WHY does any individual NEED to have a DEATH MACHINE in their possession? What specific threat to their well being and safety do they perceive? WHY do Americans – unlike anyone other nation – regard their fellow citizens with such terror that they feel compelled to walk around not just armed but VISIBLY armed? Are these people really trying to broadcast “fear” to the rest of us – that they’re “afraid of us”? Or – if we’re honest – are they actually broadcasting a whole different message: “BE AFRAID OF ME!”

Be afraid of my ability to kill you dead if I suddenly “fear for my life” because of unarmed people like you. That’s the message open carry gun lovers want the rest of us to register as they walk by.

Our gun laws have less to do with guns and more to do with who gets to have the guns: scared white people who don’t so much fear their female, Black, brown or LGBTQ neighbors as fear having to share political power with them. The Second Amendment deserves to be placed in the Witness Protection Program it’s been so badly abused by the right. The entire amendment is framed from the point of view of the militia “necessary to the security of a free state”. Those citizens (not some abstraction) are the arbiters of who gets to “keep and bear” – it does not say “own” (and “own” was a perfectly good word clearly differentiated from “keep” or “bear” even then) said “arms”. The 2nd Amendment is a gun CONTROL amendment. It is absolutely not a gun free-for-all. Otherwise, it would have said that’s what it was.

I have fired guns in my life. I enjoyed riflery at sleepaway camp when I was a kid. I have held prop guns in my hand and felt their lethality. During the LA riots, my production manager insisted I drive home with a hand gun he provided. Heading for home (our “Tales From The Crypt” studio space was way in the valley that season and I lived in the Echo Park section of LA), I had the distinct sensation that I was driving through the old west. Civilized people should never ever live that way, expecting the very worst of each other, planning to do the very worst if necessary. Guns do that to us like nothing else.

Want proof? Go to any other industrialized nation including China.

It’d be damned hard to pull off a Columbine or an Aurora or a Las Vegas or a Sandy Hook or a Parkland or a Marjory Stoneman Douglass or an Oxford High with one’s bare hands. Even a knife – though it could kill plenty of people if competently wielded – can’t kill with anything like a gun’s efficiency or scope. A killer with a knife has to be standing next to you. A killer with a high powered rifle can be standing a football field away. And if that high powered rifle is semi-automatic and can empty an ammo clip in a heartbeat? Say, while we’re thinking about it, what do you suppose the gunmen in every one of those murder scenes was “afraid of” as they went hunting for humans?

We got a hint this morning – after Ethan Crumbley’s parents were arraigned – that their defense will argue “responsibility” – that the “birthday present” murder weapon was “locked in drawer” and not “readily available” to their son (who they knew was an angry young man). How can they be responsible for manslaughter or murder when – they’ll argue – they DID behave “responsibly” toward the death machine they bought for their angry child. And, in a sense, until Ethan pulled out his Sig Sauer 9 mm semi-automatic pistol and fired 30 rounds at his fellow students and teachers, he had behaved “responsibly” – as far as we knew.

Understand – even if Ethan gets his mom’s text – “Don’t do it” – before opening fire and listens to her, and keeps the gun in his backpack, his whole family are irresponsible gun owners. The only difference is, the rest of us DON’T KNOW IT. Gun non-owners – the majority of Americans (69% of us) – are always at the mercy of gun owners (31% of us). We can’t kill or harm them the way they can kill or harm us. In fact, we aren’t even thinking that way. Meanwhile, we have to assume that from the moment James Crumbley bought that weapon for his child and put it in that “locked drawer”, that he was behaving like a “responsible gun owner” even when he wasn’t. All the advantage goes to the gun owner and none goes to the gun owner’s targets.

Remember Nancy Lanza – the “poster girl” for “responsible gun owners who were responsible until they weren’t? As Ruth Marcus put it in the Washington Post in 2013, on the tragedy’s one-year anniversary, Nancy Lanza was dealt a deeply problematic hand with her youngest son Adam. No one chose for Adam to be that deep on the Asperger’s spectrum. He didn’t. His mom certainly didn’t. But, Nancy Lanza also owned guns. She was a gun enthusiast. No harm in that (under normal circumstances). CNN, in fact, said: “she was responsible with them. She knew how to handle the weapons she collected.” See? Responsible gun owner!

Except not.

Nancy was a dedicated mother to her problematic son because, as she believed, “you never turn your back on your children”. Perhaps, if one is super kind, one sees the method in Nancy’s taking gun safety classes with Adam. But, the fact that she took those classes with Adam and went shooting with him while knowing he felt zero emotions toward her or anybody and played violent video games including one called “School Shooting” – that makes it clear: this was nothing but madness. The first person Adam Lanza murdered that day – the first person Adam Lanza ever murdered – was his mom. He shot her four times in her bed with her own legally purchased, “responsibly owned” (up until then) .22-caliber Savage Mark II rifle. Just like that, Nancy Lanza went from being a “responsible gun owner” to an irresponsible one. Hell, she probably died still believing she was a “responsible gun owner”.

From the public’s point of view, Nancy wasn’t wrong. Why would the public think otherwise? We had no way of knowing that her version of “responsible gun ownership” and actual responsible gun ownership had nothing to do with each other. At least, we didn’t know until it was too late.

See the problem here? “Responsible gun ownership” is just words that gun owners say when they think they’re being responsible even – as with Nancy Lanza – they aren’t being responsible. “Responsible gun owners” are asking everyone else to make a leap of faith that THEY are “real” responsible gun owners, not at all like all those pretenders to responsible gun ownership.

Sorry, “responsible gun owners”, but the numbers keep arguing against you. In 2019, according to UCDavis Health, there were 39,707 deaths from firearms in the US. Sixty percent of those deaths – 23,941 were suicides. Just wondering, gun owners, where do suicides fit in the “responsible gun owner” club? On top of the death toll, per UCDavis, there are approximately 115,000 non-fatal firearm injuries in America every year.

Also per that UCDavis report? “Research has found that individuals with risk factors for firearm injury and death are less likely to safely store their firearms when compared to firearm owners without these risk factors.” Who are those individuals? Perhaps if they’d make themselves known at the time they purchased their death machines, we’d be better able to anticipate their irresponsibility. Short of banning guns entirely (never gonna happen), the quickest route to forcing “responsible gun ownership” upon gun owners is to make liability insurance mandatory for all guns. Want to own a death machine? Pay for the possibility that, indeed it will cause death up front. Can’t afford the ticket to Suffragette City? Then stay away.

Even the responsible gun owners who truly aspire to be responsible can’t ever really be one hundred percent responsible. Still, they’ll insist. Like Nancy Lanza, they’ve lulled themselves into a false sense of responsible gun ownership that could bite them in the ass – while biting countless others in the ass too. Did I say “biting”? I meant “shooting” of course. and I don’t mean their asses.

First, We Have To Admit To Ourselves: There Is No Such Thing As “Responsible Gun Ownership”

Ten people died yesterday in Boulder, CO after a guy his own family thought was intensely paranoid and delusional attempted to use a military assault weapon to assuage his symptoms. A few days before, eight people (six of them women of Asian descent) were shot to death by a white guy who was “having a bad day”. Like a cliche, in the immediate aftermath of yet another gun-related tragedy, Texas Senator (and human coronavirus) Ted Cruz got up on the Senate floor and brayed about how horrible it would be if the Democrats were to use this (or any) shooting-related tragedy to try and take the legal guns from regular, law-abiding Americans — you know, the “RESPONSIBLE” gun owners. Why, THOSE PEOPLE would NEVER allow THEIR guns to do such terrible things — that’s cos they’re “RESPONSIBLE”! That’s the pitch. The bloodbath we endure in America isn’t because of all the responsible gun owners, it’s because of a handful of “bad apples”, mostly non-white so take their guns away, absolutely!

For starters, Ted Cruz is a stone cold traitor. But never mind that. He’s also a regular apologist for the fiction that “responsible” gun owners — like Ted — exist to begin with. Hey, remember Ted demonstrating just how responsible gun owners use their machine guns to cook bacon?

Yeah — that happened. Ted Cruz “keeps happening”…

I’ve fired guns. When I was a kid going to camp up in Maine in the 60’s, riflery was one of the activities. I enjoyed it though I really wasn’t very good at it (I’ve got an astygmatism in my right eye that messes with fine focus). Like I said — I enjoyed riflery. Hell, I even scored a few NRA gun safety awards. That was back when “gun safety” was what the NRA did. Before they turned into a political operation walking point for the gun manufacturers. Back before the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre-ification. Gun safety was the mantra.

Then, when riflery’s time was up — swimming was next — we campers moved on but not before the riflery counselor went through the whole ritual of putting the guns away, back in the locked gun shed where they were kept (the camp’s “gun locker”). To be honest? That’s really the only time a gun ever felt truly “safe” — when it was put away. But, let’s be real — sitting in a gun shed or a gun locker is NOT what the gun was designed to do. It was designed for a very specific purpose — to send a piece of hot metal speeding through the air at a living target, ideally in order to kill it. “Boom”. That’s it. That’s the gun’s entire purpose — to be a literal death machine. From the cutest-as-can-be single-shot derringer to an AK-47 burping death, the point of the exercise is lethality. You may only want to maim the person you just fired at, but, honestly, if there’s no way for you to control a bullet once you’ve fired it? You’ve already cast your vote.

Remember Nancy Lanza — mother to Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter? Nancy Lanza bragged about being a “responsible gun owner”. And I’ve no doubt she was — up until the very second she wasn’t — when her son killed her in cold blood with one of her own legal guns. Just like that, Nancy Lanza went from being “responsible gun owner” to “crime statistic”, having been murdered using her own weapon. I wonder if the irony hurt worse than dying did.

See, the measure of whether or not any gun owner is “responsible” or not can’t be taken when their gun is safe inside its locker. The gun wasn’t designed for that. Go ahead — look at the design specs for any gun you like. Not a one was “designed” to sit in a safe or a locker. They were all designed to kill something. So, let’s dispense with the first fiction — that guns have any practical function beyond one thing: death. Guns are hand-held death machines.

That means the the question we’re asking to gage any gun owner’s level of responsibility is, how responsible are they when their weapon is out & about? To be fair, most gun owners will be passably responsible their entire lifetimes. They or their weapon won’t kill or maim anyone. They’ll call themselves “responsible”. The fact is, they were lucky. That’s all. WHY does anyone need to have a death machine in their house or in their hands? Fear of home invasion? Gosh, how “White Guy!” To protect the family? Even whiter as excuses go. The wonderful blogger and Twitter goddess Gabrielle Blair wrote a terrific Twitter thread about men using the “I’m protecting my family!” excuse for having guns in the house.

The thread goes on. Man doesn’t make any better arguments for guns. What’d ya expect? Clarity of vision from these pirates?

Every gun is an accident or a tragedy that just hasn’t happened yet. It might not ever happen — a good thing — but that doesn’t diminish its impact on the people guns do hurt or destroy. And it never, EVER means it “can’t” happen.

Look, I support the second amendment. That is, I support the amendment’s original intention, not the ludicrous monstrosity the gun lobby turned our reading of the amendment into. Usually, it starts with some horse shit about how the term “well regulated” meant “in good working order” back then which, apparently, is now code for “have all the damned guns ya want!” Bullshit. The second amendment’s language isn’t that tricky to parse unless you intend to parse it with bad intent.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. That’s what it says. The amendment frames guns from the point of view of “a well regulated militia”. Yes, the militia plays a vital role — securing a free state. But, where guns are concerned, per the amendment, the militia must be “well regulated”. Regulated = rules. In fact, clearly, it’s the militia’s role here — among its regulations — to decide which people will get to “keep” and “bear” the arms in question. The amendment does not say “own” the arms — “own” being a perfectly good word back then. Yet the framers wrote “keep” and “bear”.

For the record, “keeping a thing” is not the same as “owning” it.

America’s gun policies all flow from a pool of racism, irrational fear and bullshit. The whole point is to arm as many white people as possible. To make this insane idea sound less insane, gun culture invented the idea of “the responsible gun owner”. White people therefore weren’t arming themselves to the teeth because they’re hopelessly racist, they were doing it because they were “incredibly responsible”!

Do you suppose it occurred to Nancy Lanza as her son Adam was drawing on her what a good and responsible gun owner she was? I don’t think so either.

“Responsible Gun Ownership” Is A Myth

It seems the Robert Alan Long — the Atlanta shooter who claims his sex addiction, not his racism, motivated his killing spree — purchased the weapon he used to murder eight people, six of them Asian women, MERE HOURS BEFORE using it to commit murder.

I’m not arguing the second amendment here. It exists. What it actually says and intends us to do as a result — that’s an argument for another blog post. The fact that any discussion about guns in America automatically becomes a discussion about language shouts volumes. But then, Americans are good at putting lipstick on pigs, thinking “All men are created equal” while institutionalizing slavery, and selling utter nonsense as “religions” that other Americans gobble up as gospel truth. We’re culturally acclimated to seeing one thing as its opposite — take Manifest Destiny. WE still tell ourselves that was a “good thing”. It wasn’t. In fact, Manifest Destiny wasn’t even a legitimate idea based on legitimate thinking. It was a myth — invented by white people to justify their terrible behavior. “Responsible gun ownership” exists in that context — a myth invented to justify… well, in this instance, not “terrible behavior”. But, behavior that can lead to terrible things happening.

It all starts with people believing a myth is real.

I’ve fired a gun before. In fact, I really enjoyed riflery the six years I got to do it when I was a kid going to sleepaway camp. I got a few NRA badges to prove it! Back then (this was the mid 1960’s), the NRA was still a “gun safety organization” and the thing I remember most from my six years of riflery, aside from the fact that I wasn’t half bad at it, was the constant refrain of gun safety, gun safety, GUN SAFETY. More than anything, the NRA-backed training I got back then imprinted the idea that guns can kill you. Even if you do everything right, there’s always the possibility that you could ONE thing wrong and you or someone could get hurt. That’s why you have to be hyper vigilant. You can never let your guard down whenever a gun is out of its locker. You have to be “responsible”.

See, I was taught “gun responsibility”. I believed in it. Just like everyone else in America, I got it into my head that while some people will only ever use guns to do bad things, most people (who just so happen to be white), only every want to use their guns to do “good things” — like hunt (debatable as a “good thing” — it certainly isn’t good from the hunted animal’s point of view) or target shoot (a perfectly good thing!) or defend themselves (a perfectly dubious thing). It’s inside that last thing — “self defense” where most of the “responsible gun ownership” mythology lurks.

For starters, it assumes something very, very dark about the rest of America — outside that gun owner’s front door. Whereas, in most other countries, it’s assumed you don’t need a gun to protect yourself from your neighbors and fellow citizens, in America, it’s “normal thinking”. Of course danger awaits outside your front door! Of course you need a lethal weapon to defend yourself — the threat outside is hell bent on murdering you! That excuse gets played regardless of which direction crime statistics are headed. The urge to “defend one’s home and hearth” isn’t based on statistics. It’s based on fear. In America, that fear is based on racism. The whole “good guy with a gun” vs “bad guy with a gun” quietly casts the good guy as almost certainly white and the bad guy as almost certainly Black. Hmmmmmm… now where could such an idea have come from?

Racism touches or has touched almost every facet of American life. Guns are no different. The whole point of our gun laws, at present, is to feed racist fear. If we could magically remove racism from peoples’ brains, here in America almost every bit of the incentive to own a weapon would evaporate. My upper middle class Jewish family — politically very liberal — still succumbed to racist fear during the riots the followed Martin Luther King’s assassination. Though Pikesville — where I grew up — was miles and miles from the parts of Baltimore that erupted in violence, my parents (and others), went out and purchased guns. They were afraid of angry Black people (angry for a very legitimate reason) coming to our neighborhood and being violent. No such thing ever happened. Did it occur in any of the angry protestor’s heads to do such a thing? Probably — but, so what?

It’s a testament to how good white people are at diving and conquering everyone else that Blacks and Jews — two groups with way, way more in common than not — could be set against each other like that. The overwhelming majority of Jews arrived in America after slavery was gone. Jews were never considered “white people” in Europe. Jews occupied the first “ghetto” — in Venice, Italy — to which they were segregated starting 29 March 1516.

Quick side note — the “ghetto” (it’s an Italian word), was a swampy island connected to the rest of the city “…by two bridges that were only open during the day. Gates were opened in the morning at the ringing of the marangona, the largest bell in St. Mark’s Campanile, and locked in the evening. Permanent, round-the-clock surveillance of the gates occurred at the Jewish residents’ expense.[fn] Strict penalties were to be imposed on any Jewish resident caught outside after curfew.[fn] Areas of Ghetto Nuovo that were open to the canal were to be sealed off with walls, while outward facing quays were to be bricked over in order to make it impossible for unauthorized entry or exit.[fn]

Jews fled Europe because of racism. They hoped for a better life here where (hopefully) racism wouldn’t constantly destroy their communities and steal their wealth. Fortunately for the Jews, America was already doing that to Black people by the time the Jews got here. And, while not considered white by most Europeans, Jews were just “white-adjacent” enough in America that white people didn’t make a point of taking their wealth as white people had historically in Europe. While Jews prospered, Black people struggled — as the Jews had in Europe — but also with the additional burden of slavery; Reconstruction’s failure kept slavery on the table.

You don’t have to dig down too far inside just about an gun law in America to find the fear it rests upon. And that fear is of former slaves getting guns and coming for payback. That’s the base justification. It’s irrational. It’s unspoken. But it’s there.

Ever notice how “normal” it is for right wingers and militia types to show up at right wing rallies armed to the teeth — even INSIDE government property where they’re using their arms to literally threaten legislators? Were those people all “responsible gun owners”? No one got shot that day. Good thing, I guess… are we then to measure the relative success of “responsibility” by lack of body count? No one died, all the gun owners acted “responsibly” this time. Is that it?

The difference between a “responsible” gun owner and an irresponsible one is the unexpected event. Take Nancy Lanza — mother of 20 year old Adam Lanza, the guy responsible for the Sandy Hook school shooting. By all accounts, prior to that event, Nancy Lanza was a “responsible gun owner”. I bet Nancy Lanza thought of herself as a “responsible gun owner”. Until the day she wasn’t — the day her son murdered her with her with one of her own weapons before heading out the door and murdering 26 MORE people at Sandy Hook Elementary School, 20 of them CHILDREN.

One moment Nancy Lanza was as responsible a gun owner as anyone and the next — a gun violence victim. Killed in her own home by her own gun. Trying to see how the “self defense” angle fits here. No one broke in to do this to her. She set herself up for failure — and then, she set up the very community she loved and was part of for even worse failure.

And pain.

The full measure of a gun owner’s “responsibility” doesn’t occur when their gun is sitting safely inside a gun safe. The gun was not designed to do that. If you really want to know how responsible a gun owner is, you have to measure their responsibility when the gun’s outside its safe and in their hands — where it always has the potential to do real damage just by operating within its design specs.

In their defense, most gun owners will never have happen to them what happened to Nancy Lanza. But none of them can guarantee that they won’t. They can’t.

And the second they tell you they can? They’re acting irresponsibly.

“Responsible Gun Ownership” Is A Myth

Let me burp up a cliche first: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. I believe you, 99.99% of gun owners (I’m trying to be super generous here): you want to own and handle your firearm responsibly. The last thing on earth you want is an accident or a tragedy happening because of you and your gun.

But, you see, the problem is — you HAVE that gun in your possession. Your right to have it isn’t being questioned here (though, frankly, the Militia needs to step up and do its damned job regulating (as per the second amendment) who gets to “keep & bear” (not own — it does not say “own”) arms. We’re starting from the proposition that (as per the current mis-reading of the second amendment’s pretty simple, straightforward words) hell, you can have as many guns as ya like!

The basic fact about any gun is that it has been designed to send a piece of hot metal flying through the air at great speed into a living target so as to kill it. That’s why it’s such a great war tool – and hunting tool. It sends pieces of hot metal into living targets so as to kill them, see?

They are literal death machines. I’m not passing judgment when I write that. I’m simply staring a fact. This is a machine designed to cause internal damage to living things. You can fire a gun at a tree as much as you like. It wasn’t designed to do that. Hell, you want that tree dead? Get a saw. It’s more appropriate.

You want a human being dead? They tend to move around. Guns work better on them than saws.

When you purchase or take possession of a gun, you are assuming ownership of a death machine. Own that fact, gun owners. Don’t get emotional about it. Just own it. FFS — if ya can’t be responsible enough to own “what you own”, you’re probably not responsible enough to have a death machine in your hands.

Anyone can be “responsible” when the death machine is not in their hands — when the death machine is locked up in a safe. Except, the death machine wasn’t designed to sit, locked up in a safe. It was designed to be taken out and fired.

Take the gun out of the safe and fire it — THEN let’s talk about whether or not you were responsible, responsible gun owner.

Hey, to repeat, I absolutely believe that 99.99% of the time, you ARE acting “responsibly” with your death machine — no one died. Good for you! You “dodged a bullet” that time.

Remember Nancy Lanza? Adam Lanza’s mom? Nancy Lanza, everyone thought — Nancy especially — that she was a “responsible gun owner”. And, by every definition that we use (“responsible gun ownership” being a created thing that we get to define ourselves), Nancy Lanza WAS a “responsible gun owner”.

Until she wasn’t. Prior to December 14, 2012, none of Nancy Lanza’s guns — and she owned lots of them; she collected them, prized them, treasured them — had ever killed anyone. As far as we know, they had never even hurt anyone. Until the morning of December 14, 2012, Nancy Lanza was “a responsible gun owner”.

And then her son Adam — who grew up in this “responsible gun owner’s” home — learning “responsible gun owner” culture and values — took several of his mom’s weapons, killed her as she slept and then went to the nearby Sandy Hook Elementary School where he — irresponsibly — murdered 26 people, most of them children.

“Responsible gun owner” until “not”. Nancy Lanza probably STILL doesn’t know how irresponsible a gun owner she was in reality.

That’s the bigger problem for those of us who DON’T own a gun — and don’t tell ourselves how responsible we are — we don’t know when the “responsible” gun owners will suddenly stop “being responsible”. We don’t know when they’ll fail — and neither do they, ya see.

We already have to live with the fact that there are PLENTY of “irresponsible” gun owners out there already — people who don’t care if, when, how, AT WHOM their guns are fired. We know we can be at the wrong place and wrong time at ANY time when our fellow citizens own firearms and suddenly decide to open fire at us without warning. Because they’re angry. Or broke. Or psychotic.

That’s why I avoid walking in dark places where irresponsible gun owners might lurk. I can’t do much about them hunting ME though. We can all relate to how animals feel when, suddenly, your day gets ruined by a human with a gun who — for some reason you can’t fathom — won’t be happy until you are dead.

Can’t do much about what I can’t anticipate. It’s the gun violence that can and does flare from the “responsible” gun owners that hurts most. That never has to happen. Those guns should never hurt or kill anyone. If those guns had stayed in their gun safes…

See what I’m saying?

The moment a gun owner took the gun into their hands — THAT’S when things got dicey. Children should never die because they found a hand gun in mommy’s handbag. People at the mercy of their own darkness should not have access to guns when therapy, love and perspective are their darkness’s enemy. A moment of intense (almost always male) rage shouldn’t find resolution by pulling a literal trigger.

We will never — ever — get rid of guns in America. That’s wishful thinking. Magical thinking even. The best we can hope for is actual “responsible” gun ownership.

That can’t begin though until “responsible gun owners” admit that there’s no such thing. They’re “gun owners” plain and simple. Whatever happens after that?

Nobody really knows.