by ToddStarnes » Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:31 pm
Oh I gotcha. I thought this was in reference to my counterargument to LNRW's position that aspiring douchebags will find a way regardless (which I think is still unaddressed). That's my mistake, and I was dismissive.
I don't disagree that this impulse exists, I just find it childish in this case. It suggests they intend to break the law if they think a ban is forthcoming and they buy weapons to circumvent it (implies they will keep them post-ban).
The broader point is that if gun control proponents cannot discuss guns without triggering additional firearms flooding the market, are we just supposed to be quiet? You seem to be saying that there simply cannot be a conversation on guns, which I don't think is tenable.