I suppose the question I have is to try and get into the mind and the intention of the Government in passing this, because judges will be trying to decipher that, I suppose, when they make these decisions. If you took the example of somebody who had shot somebody else, and perhaps killed them—or perhaps didn't kill them, but tried to kill them—would it be the expectation of the Government, in passing this bill, that that person would get a firearms protection order placed against them? Can he think of anything that would make it not necessary or not reasonable or not appropriate for somebody in that circumstance to have an FPO brought against them, or does he think it's possible that somebody could shoot to kill somebody and maybe have the desire not to shoot anybody else, and therefore they're not a risk to the public? 