[JohnKSa]

...AR15 style rifles...those types of rifles are patterned after military automatics. They look like military autos, have higher count magazines available for them, and with the right accessories can fire almost as fast as full autos can.

Actually, the M16 (the military version of the AR15) came after the AR15. Not the other way around.

That may be true, but when AR15 style rifles do get used, the number of casualties is much higher.

Higher than when other guns are used? Are we concerned about GUNS, or are we concerned about the actual casualties. If it's the latter, then why focus on guns. Clearly truck attacks can be just as deadly as gun attacks, in fact probably moreso.

If we get rid of all semi-autos and people turn to truck attacks as an alternative it would be reasonable to expect worse casualty numbers, since the alternative method is more effective. Moreover trucks are easier and cheaper to acquire since people can rent them for less than a rifle costs and without having to undergo a background check. Furthermore, nearly everyone can drive but not everyone knows how to shoot a rifle. In other words, the problem of mass casualty attacks could actually be made worse by the "solution".

You don't solve a problem by deciding up front what the solution will be without knowing the facts, without considering possible unintended consequences and without trying to do some basic analysis to determine if the solution will have the intended goal.

In fact, it's important to carefully define a goal in the first place. If the goal is to feel safe, that's a non-starter. Even in a hypothetical world with no semi-autos** there are still numerous ways to cause mass casualties. If the goal is to reduce mass murders or reduce the number of casualties, then one should consider alternative approaches that would-be mass murderers could employ to see if the solution makes sense. If mass murder techniques are a bathtub full of ping pong balls that must all be kept submerged at once with only two hands, then permanently sinking one ball doesn't really solve anything.

BUT, if the goal is to eliminate semi-autos (and that's what it sounds like the goal really is) then let's be honest about it. Let's not pretend that it's about feeling safe or reducing casualties because it's clear that eliminating semi-autos not only can't do that, eliminating semi-autos isn't even possible.**

The right way to solve a problem.
1. Carefully define the problem.
2. Research the problem.
3. Research solutions.
4. If an effective solution is found then implement it.
5. If no effective solution is found then move on to another problem.

The wrong way to solve a problem.
1. Decide we "have to do something that makes us feel better".
2. Implement a response based on feelings without knowing if it will help or hurt and without actually having defined the problem we're trying to solve in the first place.


**I say hypothetical because this is never going to happen. I don't know how a country of people who has seen how ridiculously ineffective the war on drugs has been at reducing drug use and drug sales can pretend that a ban on semi-auto firearms would actually eliminate them. It can't eliminate them.

If people want them they will be smuggled in, they will be made illegally or they will be modified from existing firearms. If you want an eye opener, here's a guy who modified his single action revolver to fire 14 rounds without reloading. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...-fed-revolver/

And that's a very basic mod. It's not that difficult to make an entire firearm with easily available equipment these days. If the demand is there, you can bet that there will be a supply to feed it.

So what's the point of banning them? To make them hard to get and use? Like illegal drugs are hard to get and use? Right, that obviously works really well.

Maybe it's to reduce the casualties? In France, the Bataclan shooting casualties were not eliminated or even reduced by the fact that the weapons used were illegal to own. It doesn't take much thought to realize that the fact that a particular weapon is illegal won't make it less effective in a mass attack.

The point of the ban is to take semi-auto firearms from law-abiding persons. It's not going to take them away from criminals because criminals don't follow the laws (by definition). It obviously is not going to make them less effective in the hands of those who illegally acquire and use them, it just means that law-abiding persons will have to use less desirable firearms for self-defense and recreation.

It is worse than pointless. If it had no negative effect, it would be pointless because it is an action which obviously can not achieve the desired goal. But it does have a negative effect. So it not only can't achieve the desired goal, it also takes a useful tool away from the law abiding population. Worse than pointless.