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.

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.

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.

> 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.

No. You did exactly that. I'm asking you politely to please stop that and the condescension. It's ineffective and rude.

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 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.

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.