The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

[Dr. Croccer]

Of course criminals use illegal guns, they aren't idiots, at least not the most succesful ones. Why would they go through all kinds of hoops to obtain legal firearms that can easily be traced when they can buy quick and cheap at some dealer's?

[Vanoi]

It would stop new supplies for illegal weapons.

Except it wouldn't. An assault rifle ban would only target guns that are automatic. Legal automatic weapons don't cause any trouble. Its illegally converted semi-auto rifles that do.

And the only way to stop this is a semi-auto rifle ban.

You can't claim that there are zero shootings involving legal assault rifles as well.

Oh i can, because there hasn't been any. Unless of course you know of one?

[PointOfViewGun]

Except it wouldn't. An assault rifle ban would only target guns that are automatic. Legal automatic weapons don't cause any trouble. Its illegally converted semi-auto rifles that do.

And the only way to stop this is a semi-auto rifle ban.

It would. Not all of them but it would eliminate at least one source. The size of the source doesn't matter. It's a potential source if not an existing one.

I'm all for a semi-automatic rifle ban.

Oh i can, because there hasn't been any. Unless of course you know of one?

Already posted two and as long as you can find sources for both on how the guns were obtained or modified illegally you can't really claim that there are no shooting sprees involving any legal assault rifles.

[Vanoi]

It would. Not all of them but it would eliminate at least one source. The size of the source doesn't matter. It's a potential source if not an existing one.

But automatic rifles aren't a source. Its semi-auto rifles. Derp.

I'm all for a semi-automatic rifle ban.

I'm not.

Already posted two

You posted two incidents in which we cannot say a legal automatic assault rifle was used. Unless of course you have evidence that they were?

and as long as you can find sources for both on how the guns were obtained or modified illegally you can't really claim that there are no shooting sprees involving any legal assault rifles.

You don't get it do you? I don't need to prove they were illegally modified. i don't even need to prove how they got them. There is no evidence at all these were legal automatic assault rifles. None.

Theres also no evidence what so ever the shooters had the NFA licenses to possess these guns in the first place.

[PointOfViewGun]

But automatic rifles aren't a source. Its semi-auto rifles. Derp.

It would. Not all of them but it would eliminate at least one source. The size of the source doesn't matter. It's a potential source if not an existing one.

You posted two incidents in which we cannot say a legal automatic assault rifle was used. Unless of course you have evidence that they were?

Nor you can say that they were illegal weapons. Hence, you can't claim that legal ones are not used at all.

You don't get it do you? I don't need to prove they were illegally modified. i don't even need to prove how they got them. There is no evidence at all these were legal automatic assault rifles. None.

Theres also no evidence what so ever the shooters had the NFA licenses to possess these guns in the first place.

I do get it. You're merely trying to utilize a selective use of facts. You need to prove that they were illegally modified if you're gonna claim that no legal such gun was used in a crime. There is no evidence that these guns were illegally modified.

I don't know how many times we need to go over this for you to realize your double standards...

[Vanoi]

Nor you can say that they were illegal weapons.Hence, you can't claim that legal ones are not used at all.

Until its been confirmed that the rifles used were completely legal and the shooters had the licenses to posses them, i very much still can make that claim.

I do get it. You're merely trying to utilize a selective use of facts. You need to prove that they were illegally modified if you're gonna claim that no legal such gun was used in a crime. There is no evidence that these guns were illegally modified.

You didn't read the links at all i posed? Do you realize the firearms could have very well been fully automatic and made before 1986, and yet they still be illegal? Do you know why? You would still need to register it with the ATF, and have the NFA license to possess them.

And if these weapons were in fact legal fully automatic assault rifles then two things would be apparent:

1. They would be registered with the ATF.

2. the shooters would have a NFA license.

How the hell would the ATF, who investigate the people who commit these shootings and how they obtained their weapons, miss these weapons being registered in their own damn data base?

How would the ATF miss these shooters having an NFA license, since you have to go to the ATF to get one?

Sorry, there is no evidence these rifles were legal.

don't know how many times we need to go over this for you to realize your double standards...

Its really not my fault you don't understand US law very much.

[PointOfViewGun]

Until its been confirmed that the rifles used were completely legal and the shooters had the licenses to posses them, i very much still can make that claim.

Nope, you can't.

You didn't read the links at all i posed? Do you realize the firearms could have very well been fully automatic and made before 1986, and yet they still be illegal? Do you know why? You would still need to register it with the ATF, and have the NFA license to possess them.

And if these weapons were in fact legal fully automatic assault rifles then two things would be apparent:

1. They would be registered with the ATF.

2. the shooters would have a NFA license.

How the hell would the ATF, who investigate the people who commit these shootings and how they obtained their weapons, miss these weapons being registered in their own damn data base?

How would the ATF miss these shooters having an NFA license, since you have to go to the ATF to get one?

Sorry, there is no evidence these rifles were legal.

The same way somehow they seem to miss them being illegally modified. There is no evidence that they were illegal.

Its really not my fault you don't understand US law very much.

I understand it all right. You're merely trying really hard not to admit your double standards.

What you're doing here is quite stupid. You're deliberately applying double standards to win an argument. You're not really proving anything here. Go on with this petty tactic though. It's a free world.

[Gigantus]

This thread has become high maintenance and isn't going anywhere - closed.