Not for for the part where you put "fun" in place of "gun". I would give you a bonus point for that, but suspect it was an error rather than any sort of Freudian slip.
I was iffy as to whether whether you or rzzzy should get the Coveted OvertonAward.
"The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, describes the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse."
You win because the level of this discussion has dropped so low, that nobody has even bothered to call you out for this pearl of poop. That is an awesome example of moving the center of the argument. It would be like a prominent politician bragging about ***** grabbing and denigrating a nationally recognized war hero- It makes what used to seem extreme seem normal.
rzyzyzy was a strong runner up in dropping the bar by calling victims "victims". And trying to perpetuate the lies about David Hogg, though, honestly, that could have been sheer ignorance and gullibility rather than deliberate.
But, we are talking about an article involving gun suicide. And, every participant in the discussion is trained in assessing lethality and means, in which access to a gun is probably the biggest factor, by a long shot. And you said it's not a factor. And nobody called you on it. That is truly normalizing the extreme.
The only way to play by these rules would be to take an equally ignorant and extreme position. I could call gun owners evil. I could pretend that "assault rifle" is a meaningful term, and banning guns based on cosmetics would have any impact. I could advocate removal of all guns in this country, despite the sheer number, and the will of a huge portion of citizens. I could ignore the occasions in which guns are used by citizens to protect innocents.
But, extreme positions like that are either willfully ignorant, or downright ignorant.
So- Like some others in this discussion, I am tapping out.
Some in this discussions have views different from mine, and expressed them well. Thank you.