>>In the meantime, bad people in the US have easy access legally to semi-automatic rifles. That's not the only problem, but isn't that a big one?
>
>For the third time: semi-automatic weapons have been easily available to licensees in NZ for decades. The sky hasn't fallen, and I doubt it will. Why? I attempted that one too, and Thomas provided literary evidence that it's hardly a revelation.

Can you buy, own and transfer a military style assault weapon in NZ with no vetting at all? Is it a right to own this type of guns in NZ, or is it a privilege?

>>>A while back in this thread, I posted a link to the Army Field Report assessing the AR-15. That thing is built to kill people on the battlefield.
>
>Same as hired trucks are designed to plow through pedestrians in Nice? Or grenades in Stockholm?

Give me a good reason for civilians owning an operational AR-15. Are grenades legal in Sweden?

>>>An idea subjected to infinite regression never appears sound. Bill - and Aristotle - are right; some knowledge does not depend on demonstration.
>
>If society did tolerate that as a killer argument, human progress would be over.

You insist in arguing that a ban would not solve any problems, while others are appalled at the fact that something designed and built to be extremely lethal is legal. Where is the disconnect?
*