>Operation Choke Point was about investigating firearms businesses' accounts looking for money laundering. You're saying this led to a reduction in gun crime? Because at face value it looks like a swamp tactic to exercise state power against a business to achieve a collateral goal.
>
>As for your citation from that renowned bastion of fairness the Washington Post: buried in the fine print is that the legislation about mental impairment was a last minute executive order in December 2016. Then it was Congress that undid this. It seems odd that somebody who claps when an unelected judge in Hawaii temporarily prevents POTUS exercising power granted by Congress, then complains if Congress itself overturns an 11th hour unilateral action by the previous president.
>
>Thr main story in that, is that presidents should not hope to subvert/slip measures past incoming Congress during the lame duck period, because incoming Congress can simply undo them. That's democracy at work, far more so than a Hawaiian judge preventing POTUS exercising rights specifically granted him by Congress. FWIW, I don't see WAPO crowing that SCOTUS has since thrown out those judicial blocks on POTUS border controls. All those judges did, was postpone Congressional intent for POTUS to protect the borders and citizenry.
>
>>>So there are some facts. So what you think that legislation that would make it easier to buy gun silencers and to carry concealed weapons across state lines is good for American's or something?
>
>Lets be real: laws scolding people for carrying contraband across state lines, are no more effective than scolding illegal immigrants for crossing the border. If they're motivated, they'll do it. Unless you're proposing walls between states to stop all those naughty people? Or gigantic moats, as enjoyed by Hawaii. How much of this awful gun traffic are you seeing in real life?
>
>As for suppressors: have you ever fired an assault rifle? Without a suppressor, the noise is catastrophic. There's 3 components: the initial "boom", the crack of a bullet exceeding the speed of sound, and the sound of the bullet hitting something. The suppressor helps with the initial "boom" as well as the bright muzzle flash. The goal is to bring down the >165db boom to something closer to 140db, bearing in mind that a jet taking off an aircraft carrier with afterburner generates 130db at 50 feet. So the idea that it "silences" the weapon like in the movies is absurd, not least because you still get the "crack" and strike sound.
>
>IMHO suppressors aren't much use for recreational shooting where you can wear earmuffs, but it's dangerous to wear those when hunting in my opinion, or for police or military. Without the earmuffs, an unsuppressed firearm risks your own and others' hearing and affects aim since you're anticipating the bright muzzle flash and massive boom. Use of a suppressor makes the weapon less tiring to use, improves aim and reduces these risks.
>
>Some people prefer to believe that "silencers" allow mass shooters to be more effective. Except for one thing: suppressors melt under rapid or bump stock fire. Had the recent mass shooter used a suppressor, lives would have been saved when his weapons malfunctioned. But don't let facts get in the way of the party line.

Since you don't live here I don't think you're able to fully understand the problems we face here. This is apparent because you're saying to not create new laws because someone will just break the law and then attempting to rationalize making silencers legal. We can not have a 'do nothing about it' approach. How many of YOUR friends and family members have been shot or shot and killed over there in New Zealand? I suspect that sadly my number will be higher here.