Bill D.,

I thought I had been pretty clear about why I included the anecdotes, but I guess not. As I mentioned, I was NOT arguing about gun control, since I have already made my position clear.

I was pointing out a problem that occurs when those who support gun control use the kind of arguments that TIA used. The problem is that such arguments sound, to many ordinary Americans, err, let's just say they sound neither wise nor humble. Imply to a life-long hunter, for example, that there is no benign use of a gun and you get little light and much heat.

In contrast, your own approach, with your analogy comparing guns and cars, is reasonable, fruitful, and likely to provke discussion rather than rage.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you mention hypotheticals in my post. If any are there, I confess I can't see them.

I am not the one who again brought up the issue of the relative safety of cars and knives vs. guns, nor did I bring up the issue of concealability. That was TIA. I responded out of frustration that these issues were AGAIN brought up by a gun control advocate who apparently thought they were very telling arguments, when in fact it merely provokes eye-rolling by those who support the status quo.

I am disappointed you thought I was trying to find a set of "buttons to push". I trust that when you re-read the first and last sentences of my post you will see that this is the very opposite of my intention. I was offering advice on how to make arguments FOR gun control, a position which I oppose, more palatable to libertarians. I thought that was rather civil of me.

Kent