Why don't you have a read of the 2nd Amendment instead of something written by an Australian in Australia?

First off I shoot semi auto firearms in recreational and competition sporting events as do thousands of other people. Millions of semi autos are used for sport and hunting every year by millions of law abiding citizens. These are not machine guns. You cant go around destroying an entire industry because a couple of deranged individuals snapped and kill someone. 40,000 people a year are killed in auto accidents, we're not talking about banning cars are we? Gun control doesn't work because criminals don't follow the laws. the only people who are impacted by gun laws are law abiding citizens, you know, the good guys. So why are you trying to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. During the LA riots gangs of murderous, looting thugs terrorized whole neighborhoods killing, raping and stealing. The police were helpless against such numbers. The only shops that were not destroyed we're the ones protected by the gun weilding owners. They didn't stand on the roofs with revolvers they stood there with semi auto rifles and protected their families, coworkers and patrons. I'm so tired of hearing people say you don't need an AR15. Crap happens and some people have chosen to take responsibility for themselves and exercise their god given right to self defense as guaranteed by the constitution. Get informed on the issue.

Tom: It discusses the 2nd Amendment here: http://rationalexaminer.com/2013/01/17/guncontrol1/

Jim: The question is whether you could still defend yourself without semi autos? And yes, unfortunately it will kill the industry. But if it makes people feel safer from mass shootings, that might be a worthwhile thing. Unfortunately it is a case of a few people ruining for a lot of responsible gun owners, but that's just the way it goes sometimes. If they could screen things better, that would be fine, but I can't see how they can do it effectively.

I'm not interested in making people "feel"safer. That's the root of the problem. It's not about "feeling" it's about facts. Here in Md there were two people killed with rifles in 2011. Not AR15s, just regular rifles. Statistically speaking it's a non issue. On the other hand there were 17 of people beaten to death with bare hands and feet that same year. There are hundreds of thousands of examples of people using semi auto firearms to defend themselves each year. I will never willingly agree to give up a fundamental right just because there have been a couple of mass shootings. Let law abiding citizens carry concealed and I promise you the carnage will stop. All of these mass shootings happen in "gun free zones". GFZs are nothing more than an invite for lunatics to perpetrate their heinous activities. To your point; could I defend myself with one thing other than a semi auto? The shop keepers in the LA riots faced hundreds of rioting, murderous thugs. A revolver isn't cutting it. An AR15 or an AK47 fits the bill nicely thank you. You can't make society safer by depriving law abiding citizens of the right to bear arms.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

Jim, you make some interesting points, but they're not solid ones.
- So a shopkeeper in the LA riots pulls out a semi-auto? What happens if rioters are carrying around semi-autos too? How does that work out?
- "Hundreds of thousands of examples of people using semi auto firearms to defend themselves each year"? I'd like to see the statistics for that (seriously).
- Did you know that seven of the top ten states where mass shootings have occurred are 'shall issue' states for concealed weapons? So I'm not convinced that concealed weapons would help.
- Could a mass killer use another weapon if they didn't have access to a semi-auto? A home-made bomb maybe? Sure, but it's not as easy as grabbing a semi-auto and going on a shooting spree.
- I think your point that gun control won't necessarily get semi-autos out of the hands of those intent on misusing them is a fair point. However it would reduce the number of shooting sprees from those acting on impulse rather than carefully planning their attacks, because it will be harder to obtain them.

I think on balance banning semi-autos will reduce mass shooting incidents. If someone could prove to me that having semi-autos saves more lives than if they were banned, then I could be persuaded to change my mind about the sense of gun reforms. But I haven't seen any evidence of this yet.

So lets take your points one at a time, ( and by the way, this is the sort of discourse I enjoy as it is rational and gives opportunity to air both sides of the debate - so thank you)

Lets talk about semi autos. Semi auto simply means that each time the trigger is pulled the discharge from he round being fired causes the gun to cycle, ejecting the spent casing (that held the bullet and powder) and grabbing another round off the magazine. Semi autos can be pistols like a glock or a 1911 .45 or they can be rifles like browning hunting rifle or an AR 15. Semi autos are widely used by the public, law abiding citizen and criminal alike.

Now if I am a shopkeeper or a home owner I want a semi auto firearm, it affords me the ability to carry sufficient rounds to counter multiple attackers and change magazines if need be. The average number of rounds exchanged in a gun fight is 10, the average number of hits is 2. This is because defensive shooting situations are very dynamic and despite what you see on TV people don't just fall down dead when they get shot. You often have to shoot the multiple times to stop the threat. It is very likely that an attacker already has a semi auto hand gun as they are the most common firearm in the world. I absolutely should have one as well.

Next point- yes firearms are used defensively thousands of times a year. You don't generally hear about them for several reasons. First it doesn't fit the mainstream media anti gun agenda and secondly often the

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/smitht1.htm

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Conservative estimates on defensive gun use are in the tens of thousands, some put the estimate as high as two million times a year. Mind you we are not talking about actually having to shoot an attacker but simply showing armed resistance is often sufficient to deter the crime. Regardless, even if we take the conservative estimate of 20,000 defensive gun uses a year the ownership of guns is justified.

Rod zzz says - Did you know that seven of the top ten states where mass shootings have occurred are 'shall issue' states for concealed weapons? So I'm not convinced that concealed weapons would help.

Lets look at this carefully. With the exception of he Gabriel Giffords shooting, all of these mass shootings have occurred in "gun free zones" where law abiding citizens are not allowed to carry. GFZs are an invitation to these deranged killers because they know that no one will be armed. Why don't mass shootings happen at gun shows where heir are tons of gun? Because the vendors are armed.

Since 1992 - 42 states have passed shall issue laws allowing law abiding citizens to carry. During the same period violent crime has fallen. While doesn't mean carry laws have reduced crime it certainly does imply that allowing citizens to carry does not contribute to crime. So what's the problems with allowing citizens to exercise that right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Property_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

- Rodzz says Could a mass killer use another weapon if they didn't have access to a semi-auto? A home-made bomb maybe? Sure, but it's not as easy as grabbing a semi-auto and going on a shooting spree.

You cannot ban semi auto firearms. In the Heller case theSupreme Court already decided that you can not ban those arms which are in common use today. "as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

- Rodzzz says - I think your point that gun control won't necessarily get semi-autos out of the hands of those intent on misusing them is a fair point. However it would reduce the number of shooting sprees from those acting on impulse rather than carefully planning their attacks, because it will be harder to obtain them.

I think on balance banning semi-autos will reduce mass shooting incidents. If someone could prove to me that having semi-autos saves more lives than if they were banned, then I could be persuaded to change my mind about the sense of gun reforms. But I haven't seen any evidence of this yet.

Again, you can't ban semi auto firearms. Not going to happen ever. The decision has already been made at the Supreme Court level. Would you feel better if the shooter used a pump shot gun or a couple of revolvers? The carnage is no different if the shooter brings a couple of revolvers and a shotgun.

These mass shootings, while horrific, are statistically insignificant. Each year there are thousands of murders involving hand guns which are essentially one on one type crimes. That's where the gun crime stats are highest. Banning semi autos will do nothing to change that. Even if you could magically make all semi autos disappear people would simply resort to revolvers. Guns are not the issue.

Those studies you cited are very interesting, but flawed in their reliance on perception (e.g., people are prone to identifying themselves as the ‘victims’ and exaggerating the consequences if they didn’t respond). Still, they are helpful.

I have no problem with the carry laws. My only point there is do they help reduce mass shootings? Maybe some, but I doubt most. But I don't think there is any research to back up a view on this either way.

The lack of research also is a problem for making any conclusions about eliminating gun free zones. Again, I would like to see some hard data on how many incidents could be averted through armed teachers or guards. So eliminate 50% of GFZs and see what happens?

The Supreme Court rulings are a problem. The Miller decision was totally confusing. What the heck does "ordinary military equipment" and a "well regulated militia" refer to? They interpreted the 2nd Amendment as applying to militia organisation only. The Heller decision did a poor job making sense of the Miller decision, and had to correct it by saying that the 2nd Amendment permitted gun ownership for reasons of self defense. How semi-autos figure into their decisions is anyone's guess, although the Heller decision asserted the right of government to decide what weapons are permissable.

You say, “The carnage is no different if the shooter brings a couple of revolvers and a shotgun.” There would be a slower rate of fire, but I get your point.

This is the best overview of the statistics: http://rationalexaminer.com/2013/01/18/guncontrol2/

You are right that there is no good evidence to show it reduces crime, but then again, there has been a Congressional ban on conducting research on gun control that Obama is trying to lift. The issue with semi-automatic bans isn't about reducing crime rates anyway, but about reducing mass shooting incidents.

I don't care who does how much research. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Pas 10,000 laws it won't matter because only law abiding citizen follow laws. The only people impaired by laws are law abiding citizen. How freaking dense can you be? I promise you there are no criminals sitting at home right now saying "I would love to rob the bank with my 9mm but semi auto guns are illegal so I can't use my gun" do you realize how incredibly stupid your argument is? Banning guns does nothing. You can commit mass murder with a glass jar filled with gasoline and a lighter. Guns aren't the problem.

Jim: I agree that there is no point having a ban if the banned items are left in the hands of criminals. So what's the answer then?

The answer is to let law abiding citizens carry concealed. Eliminate "gun free zones" . GFZs are an invitation to commit mass murder. These insane murderers are nothing but wussies. If you present a challenge to them they will do what they always do, kill themselves, or get killed by an armed citizen. 42 other states allow concealed carry. There have been no shoot outs in the streets, people aren't shooting each other over parking spaces. Everyday law abiding citizen carry and we are a safer nation because of it. Since 1992 more and more states have pass "shall issue" carry laws. During the same period violent crime has decreased. Unfortunately bad things happen, depriving law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves is definitely not the answer.

Yes I have noticed that. At least the reasonable ones, after contemplating the logic of the argument will realize that in fact gun control doesn't work. The irrational ones and the hoplophobes, will usually just become irate and indignant and insist on trampling on a god given right to self defense because that how they "feel" about it. Unfortunately a lot of those folks are in positions of political power. No amount of logic or reason can be applied to those people.