@thecurious1 reply buttttonnnnnnnnn
>wrong
If you read my post carefully you would have seen that I agree with you and acknowledge that I misread you.
You just can't help yourself, can you?
Although
>"solution.. more guns?" was clearly a leading question
You admit here that I didn't misinterpret you at all. It was a leading question, and your strategy is to say.. AH HA I LEAD YOU?
'kay
real constructive
>outline them
I think your solution is probably close to ideal.
But let's see if there's any way to improve it.
I suppose the benefit of ensuring law abiding citizens are not armed means that if the police kick down the wrong door and someone points a gun at them, they were technically a criminal anyway.
Although I'm not sure that they deserve to be executed for having an illegal firearm. What do you think?
