We both know that rarely actually happens.

In the south that’s called a mosquito nursery. We try to avoid those.

It only really works if you live in a more Catholic part of the country.

Better to wear red than orange.

No it doesn’t, but it does say that we will guarantee the security of Ukraine if their borders weren’t respected. The Budapest Memorandum has no teeth though, it was written with nuclear non-proliferation in mind, not a resurgent Russia.

The Russians violated the Budapest Memorandum, which the US signed.

The Japanese “Navy” is a very capable force that rivals most European navies. 5 “helicopter destroyers”, 27 destroyers (6 of them Aegis equipped DDGs), 17 attack subs...they’re quite capable for a “self defense force”.

And yet while gun ownership has risen, the rates of gun related homicides has gone down. The proliferation of firearms is not leading to more violent crimes.

Yes. All big game is hunted with high powered rifles. Any mammal larger than rabbit or raccoon (deer and hogs are probably the most common).

There are options available for hearing protection. There are not options that would equal a suppressor and ear muffs/plugs. High powered hunting rifles are incredibly loud. You can hear them from miles away.

Nuclear weapons have a single terrible purpose, and anytime they are used it is disastrous.

Metaphorically speaking, yes but...ahem...nevermind.

I live in an oil and gas production area, and many of our municipal vehicles are now CNG. The city buses are mostly LNG. I think Chesapeake paid for a large portion of the facilities costs (high pressure gas lines, reserve tanks, etc.).

I think it’s an objectionable position when there is very little actual evidence that this will increase crime. There are far easier ways to kill someone quietly than to purchase a $1000 suppressor that adds another 5 inches to the end of a pistol, that doesn’t actually make it that quiet.

So you think we should ban things that are “useful” for murder?

The point of the legislation is that it actually is a health issue (there are CDC studies on it), and the risk of it becoming used for crimes is very small. The benefit outweighs the risk here.

To an extent, yes. But it’s still harder to get a suppressor in the US than it is to get a firearms license in many W. European countries. These are arcane laws that should be changed.

How many silencers have been used in murders in the past 10 years?

Most of the readers here couldn’t tell you which part of a rifle is the stock.

This is in no way true. Bullets don’t come in contact with the suppressor.