I can get behind those statements.

You are semantically avoiding my question.

I’m sure there are quieter ways to get your venison.

So let’s keep them expensive and hard to get. Who is HARMED by that?

High five!

“Guns are tools” made me laugh. I thought they were weapons. My mistake I guess!

Almost. Trust should be extended more to things that are needed and rather than things that are wanted. Also, trust with weapons of murder isn’t the same thing with trust with abstaining from fraud.

Does that sound like an objectionable position? Try the reverse, “I think we should have greater access to tools that are useful for murder.” Plus they aren’t banned right now, just regulated and hard to get. A ban implies impossible. I am comfortable with making them hard to get. If you have a legitimate need for…

Isn’t it good to have a louder sound to alert other people in the area that bullets may be whizzing by? In general.

I am pointing out what a handgun is made for. It is made for shooting people. Alcohol isn’t made for poisoning people, so your analogy is false equivalence. Sure both can be dangerous, but alcohol is designed to be drunk as a beverage and a handgun is designed to be fired at a human being.

I should have said silencers are useful for murder.

Since this isn’t trophy or food hunting, it should be carried out by licensed professionals. Professionals can get whatever equipment they need, this proposed law applies to private citizens. I see your argument for licensed professionals, but this law doesn’t apply in this case. Keep silencers out of the public’s…

That’s ok. I almost replied to a sarcastic comment of yours down below because I took it at face value. Subtlety is hard to judge on the internet.

If you want to split hairs - a handgun is “used” to shoot a human being. Practicing with a handgun is practicing for shooting humans. So most “uses” are murder or manslaughter, attempted or successful. There is no other purpose for a working handgun.

You said “need” and “want” in your opening sentence. Should government give people what they need? Should government give people what they want? Should needs be prioritized in light of risks? Should wants be given any weight in light of risks?

Ear protections doesn’t look as cool either amiright?

Gun-related hearing loss is a serious health problem! Politicians are serious about reducing gun-related health problems!

That would be sweet, but you can’t beat the energy density of a fuel. Electric works better the bigger the vehicle right now. Someday. Gas motorcycles are very smelly.

Don’t feed the trolls, no matter how tempting.

So you agree this bill is unnecessary?