Sure do.
No I didn't. In fact, the opposite. I assumed you'd be opposed to owning nukes and napalm and used it to highlight that people shouldn't be able to own things that cause massive amounts of death for no real purpose.
Let's examine your post....
"I believe that is as unethical and senseless an argument as saying people should be
able to legally have napalm or a nuke, so long as you don't do anything funny with it."
You're equating what I said with napalm & nuclear weapons.
This is utterly ridiculous. I wonder what response your equation would
get from survivors of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs?
It's a terrible thing to kill &/or injure 500+ people, but nuclear weapons
can kill many tens of thousands with lasting radiation dangers.
Gun control policy discussions cannot be based upon nuclear weapon
limitations. There are unfathomably vast differences both in effect & law.
Yet I'm the one who is either insane, senseless or unethical!
Barsh flimshaw!
Yet clearly you do, as there is a line between nukes and napalm which is not okay and insensibly large amounts of guns regularly used in massive violence. I'm asking where that line is.
I didn't see you ask me.
Which post was it?
The Canuckistanian penguin did though, & I responded.
Was it unsatisfactory?