4 ms·

You misunderstand my statement. I was answering your question, not arguing that the leak was good. I don't subscribe to the argument that firearms serve as an

You misunderstand my statement. I was answering your question, not arguing that the leak was good. I don't subscribe to the argument that firearms serve as an effective deterrent to robbery, so it almost certainly can't help. But you asked where the black market gets it's merchandise. Theft, smuggling, and straw purchases immediately spring to mind. It would be interesting to see data comparing the effectiveness of each.

mulmen 4y ago
> I’m surprised, seems more likely they would buy off the black market. Reads to me as: “I’m surprised [criminals steal guns] seems more likely they would buy [stolen guns] off the black market.” The suggestion guns are sourced from a black market is not a compelling argument against those items being stolen. Invoking the black market itself establishes the incentive to steal.
- falcrist 4y ago
  You seem to have responded to me in error. I didn't make the statement you quoted. I merely responded to the question regarding where else the black market could have acquired those guns.
  - mulmen 4y ago
    I made no error. You seem to have lost track of the context in this thread. I replied to a comment (not yours) that essentially said guns come from the black market instead of being stolen. I pointed out through a rhetorical device the possibility that the black market sells stolen products and so both are true. You then replied to that rhetorical.
    - falcrist 4y ago
      I haven't lost track of anything. You asked a question and I replied to that. As far as your rhetorical device, I'm sorry but theft isn't the only way firearms get into that market. You're trying to attribute arguments to me that I never made, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. Thanks.
      - mulmen 4y ago
        > You're trying to attribute arguments to me that I never made, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. I explicitly did the exact opposite of that. You are clearly confused but at this point I don’t think I can help you.
        falcrist 4y ago
        No. You did exactly that. I'm asking you politely to please stop that and the condescension. It's ineffective and rude.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        mulmen 4y ago
        You’re clearly still confused and I think that’s why you are being defensive. I replied to sha256sum’s (not you!) comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31912312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31912312 with a rhetorical question. You then answered it as if it were an actual question. Since that wasn’t the reason for the question I then explained my interpretation of the original post (that again, you did not make). Since that point you seem to believe I claimed sha256sum’s post was yours but in fact I did no such thing and actually disclaimed it specifically.
        falcrist 4y ago
        No. I'm clearly not confused. I know who you replied to. I'm not responding to them. I'm tired of the disingenuous way you've approached this conversation, and your awful attitude. As I said in my last comment, you need to cut it out.

mulmen 4y ago

> I’m surprised, seems more likely they would buy off the black market. Reads to me as: “I’m surprised [criminals steal guns] seems more likely they would buy [stolen guns] off the black market.” The suggestion guns are sourced from a black market is not a compelling argument against those items being stolen. Invoking the black market itself establishes the incentive to steal.

falcrist 4y ago
You seem to have responded to me in error. I didn't make the statement you quoted. I merely responded to the question regarding where else the black market could have acquired those guns.
- mulmen 4y ago
  I made no error. You seem to have lost track of the context in this thread. I replied to a comment (not yours) that essentially said guns come from the black market instead of being stolen. I pointed out through a rhetorical device the possibility that the black market sells stolen products and so both are true. You then replied to that rhetorical.
  - falcrist 4y ago
    I haven't lost track of anything. You asked a question and I replied to that. As far as your rhetorical device, I'm sorry but theft isn't the only way firearms get into that market. You're trying to attribute arguments to me that I never made, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. Thanks.
    - mulmen 4y ago
      > You're trying to attribute arguments to me that I never made, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. I explicitly did the exact opposite of that. You are clearly confused but at this point I don’t think I can help you.
      - falcrist 4y ago
        No. You did exactly that. I'm asking you politely to please stop that and the condescension. It's ineffective and rude.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        mulmen 4y ago
        You’re clearly still confused and I think that’s why you are being defensive. I replied to sha256sum’s (not you!) comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31912312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31912312 with a rhetorical question. You then answered it as if it were an actual question. Since that wasn’t the reason for the question I then explained my interpretation of the original post (that again, you did not make). Since that point you seem to believe I claimed sha256sum’s post was yours but in fact I did no such thing and actually disclaimed it specifically.
        falcrist 4y ago
        No. I'm clearly not confused. I know who you replied to. I'm not responding to them. I'm tired of the disingenuous way you've approached this conversation, and your awful attitude. As I said in my last comment, you need to cut it out.