How 'If,' 'Might.' and Disingenuous Debate Fuel Anti-Gu...

How 'If,' 'Might.' and Disingenuous Debate Fuel Anti-Gun Side of Debate

bearingarms.com

On Saturday, I talked about how the terrorist attack in Moscow undermines much of gun control advocates’ arguments about the efficacy of such laws. After all, this is the line pushed by a lot of anti-gun activists, that we can prevent such shootings.

Yet most aren’t speaking definitively, really. They pretend that each individual shooting could have been prevented, but they always couch their words just slightly.

Over at Ammoland, Dave Workman notes this trend as well. He’s got a piece originally from The Hill that he takes issue with just how disingenuous anti-gunners can be with that language.

Two sentences in the second paragraph of an Op-Ed in The Hill about gun control failures relating to the recent trials of James and Jennifer Crumbley—parents of Michigan school killer Ethan Crumbley—perhaps best illustrate the vacuum of logic within the gun control movement, guaranteeing that whatever restrictive laws anti-gunners adopt, they will always fall short.