No, I don't buy this single digit IQ act, you do support the assassination of your political opponents. You don't really think that some infant in a kindergarten is affected by the same or similar mortality risk factors as a victim of political murder. You can stop pretending to be this stupid now.

Dying to a gunshot by accident or suicide, dying because you're a child who finds an unsecured gun, dying in a mass shooting, dying because a cop shot you for whatever reason, dying because a criminal chose to shoot you with an unregistered firearm, dying to a shot from a legal concealed carry weapon regardless of justification - all of these are examples of deaths that can be made less likely by restricting gun ownership in a society, albeit with the tradeoff of altering death risk in other ways.

Someone killed by a political enemy - an enemy who can take their entire lifetime to plot the murder should they wish to, using any method they wish to, for the motive of say, ooooooh idk, silencing a proponent of gun ownership - is not affected by any of these risks. They are also not protected by the supposed security offered by firearms restrictions, since the determined assassin can pick any method they want, including making their own gun from scratch as with Shinzo Abe. And of course, a political target is in fact much more likely to benefit from the intended purpose of legal gun ownership which is self-defence, via armed security. The only reason Kirk didn't have this defence in his favour was because he was such a retarded political target for the left, that I guess nobody thought to take the precaution. Nevertheless, he was targeted and every conservative will go that far and further to defend against political violence in future.

You know all these obvious facts of course. I just went through the effort of spelling it out so that your next mental gymnastics will have to be all the more elaborate. Go on, roll around.

No, I don't buy this single digit IQ act, you do support the assassination of your political opponents. You don't really think that some infant in a kindergarten is affected by the same or similar mortality risk factors as a victim of political murder. You can stop pretending to be this stupid now.

Dying to a gunshot by accident or suicide, dying because you're a child who finds an unsecured gun, dying in a mass shooting, dying because a cop shot you for whatever reason, dying because a criminal chose to shoot you with an unregistered firearm, dying to a shot from a legal concealed carry weapon regardless of justification - all of these are examples of deaths that can be made less likely by restricting gun ownership in a society, albeit with the tradeoff of altering death risk in other ways.

Someone killed by a political enemy, an enemy who can take their entire lifetime to plot the murder should they wish to, using any method they wish to, for the motive of say, ooooooh idk, silencing a proponent of gun ownership, is not affected by any of these risks. They are also not protected by the supposed security offered by firearms restrictions, since the determined assassin can pick any method they want, including making their own gun from scratch as with Shinzo Abe. And of course, a political target is in fact much more likely to benefit from the intended purpose of legal gun ownership which is self-defence, via armed security. The only reason Kirk didn't have this defence in his favour was because he was such a retarded political target for the left, that I guess nobody thought to take the precaution. Nevertheless, he was targeted and every conservative will go that far and further to defend against political violence in future.

You know all these obvious facts of course. I just went through the effort of spelling it out so that your next mental gymnastics will have to be all the more elaborate. Go on, roll around.