You note I tried to paint gun rights proponents as misguided. No. (Not sure
what I should call that. Fake News? Ah, someone just shoot me, please.) But,
No, I talked about those who believe they are defending themselves and their
families by buying a gun and bringing it into their homes. They may not even be
a subset of gun rights proponents. So some twisting and distorting going on. As
for the 'opinion', It's just statistics, and police and defense experts
talking, and you know the numbers just as much as I do. Chances are a family
member or acquaintance will be shot way before before they protect themselves
from an outside threat. (Say, did I ever tell you the funny story about my to
be wife and her sister who owned a house together? I'm sure I did)
But that does bring us to the 'nonsensical' comment of 'clip size of zero'. I'm
sure you gathered that was a way of saying 'no firearms in the home for
defensive purposes'. Youâre a smart guy, and no matter how confusing I can
write at time, and it's true, it was easy to pick up. But that would have
prevented the nonsensical comment. I could be wrong. You tell me about which
part.
Pretending to discuss. You lay a line of pity on us about the poor dads who
can no longer give guns to their children, noting what an honorable tradition
is being wickedly destroyed; and noting it is legal. Love that one. I get it
from Mitch too. Some sort of logic about the legal thing being good because
it's legal. (Say, did I ever tell you how to solve the issue of illegal
immigrants?). You'll find a lot of NEW laws, certainly not all, dealing with
what they think are bad, LEGAL, things, trying to make them, yep, ILLEGAL. I
say that only in the general sense before I'm accused of accusing these people
of bad parenting.
Back to pretending to discuss. I supplied you with, first, the general
description of those under 18 as being ineligible. And it included a list, 1
thru 4, or i thru IV, for how they become eligible, noting I think they were a
good list. And that tradition can easily be maintained. This came under the
blew right by it comment when you ignored my question. Was your original
statement more fake news, of a sort? Still shoot me.
So far, no new issues, or maybe no issues worthy of a discussion format.
Now you want to go thru your list, skipping right by my list, and wonder why
silencers should be banned. An easy answer is they are an attempt to be
deceptive, secretive, hide things; and the old bad cop story line, if they are
trying to hide something it's probably illegal. Like if they arrested you,
you're probably guilty.
But no. Besides also asking why do you not want them banned? Trying not to wake
the children? Forget I went that direction. Since that would be simply
duplicate what I think this line of thought does. Discourage, rather than
encourage, while doing what some would call nit picking on minor issues.
Really, why would I ban silencers? I'd tell you what I really think people
could do with them, but, well, you know.
I'll quickly lump all the reasons under one easy umbrella for you. Why assault
weapons, whatever cosmetics you want to put on them, should be restricted.,
same with large clip sizes, whether it be 5 or 9 or 11, or why waiting periods
should be enacted, and data collected, and certain people made ineligible (not
sure why dead beat dad were picked on except they are a substitute for
something else?). It's because they appear to be common parts of gun control
laws in places that have 1/8th to 1/100th the gun deaths or gun homicides that
we do. Almost for sure it's not the only thing working for them. But it's
there. And recent changes to enact these restriction have been successful for
them. It's like using empirical knowledge instead of equations or emotions.
Goes both ways.
I could tell you what I really think, but it's not germane. It doesn't matter
what I think, if I'm a frothing thing at the mouth anti gun nut, or if I like
my guns or not. While numbers aren't godlike, they do tell us it could be
done, it has been done. No, they're not us, but they're not so different
(unless you buy into Mitch's theory about who we should be looking at). While
we got 1,300 in mass killings in 12 years according to one report, we have
hundreds of thousands in gun deaths (those not homicide are mostly suicides by
sick people) and hundreds of thousands in gun homicides. Those mass killing
some like to focus on, for reasons of their own, are less than 1% of the issue.
And within those hundreds of thousands you're going to find plenty of school
age kids. And they've (the others) have insanely lower numbers, up there, over
there, down there, and over there.
Say does this mean I can simply say "I think I've already answered that
question"?
But, really, when you ask me why I want to ban silencers, for which I assume
there are a number of good reasons, I don't believe you want this discussion. I
think you'd like to gum it to death until it disappears. Remember, JMO, now.
So much for quickly.
And then I couldn't send this then as my limits had been exceeded. Again, so
much for quickly. But it did allow me the opportunity to tell you it was a
gorgeous day to drive around with the top down.
Thanks much