Weaons Bans? Do the Math

There are those that really believe that a ban on the future sales of semi-auto mag fed rifles. would suddenly cause Islamic terrorist to stop their killing, or at least mitigate their killing, but they can't explain how that would work. First SAMFR account for less deaths than any other weapon, so even if all these SAMFR suddenly disappeared from the US, it would have practically no affect on gun crimes. However, that is not the plan, as the ban would only affect future sales, leaving 3-4 million of these rifles available. It is simply a war on reality that such a ban would save any lives for a very long time to come; if ever; and this not just my opinion, it is an opinion that is universally accepted by anyone the can look at these issues objectively, Following this ban there are usually laws that would require those with SAMFR to register them, but since the sole purpose of this registration is for later confiscation, the compliance level where it has been tried is less than 5%. My question is simple, I ask anyone that is for a banning SAMFR, to explain how it would stop any criminal from acquiring one. And it is not so simple as a ban would limit the number of SAMFR available to criminals and terrorist. In the US there has been 14 deadly Islamic terrorists attacks, some of which didn't even involve a SAMFR, however even if one assumes that that each attack SAMFRs, that would mean that over 6 years, 28 assault rifles used. Even if one accepts that the number of Islamic terrorists attacks will will increase to double the current rate, a ban would need to stop 10 SAMFR @ year (or 100 over the next 10 years) out of the 3-4 million available, to fall into criminal Islamic Terrorists hands; that doesn't include the estimated 1000's of SAMFRs (specifically Russian AK-47's since Obama's ban) smuggled into the US. We also know that with relatively free/open borders, if Americans want something and are willing to pay the price, someone will make them available (look at alcohol use during the Prohibition, and the failure of stopping illegal drug use).

Gerry Grimes stated; "Now, would banning them stop all future mass murders — absolutely not. Would it significantly reduce their death/injury toll — absolutely". However the poster doesn't explain how this "absolutely" would happen. To even mitigate the killings done by Islamic terrorists, would necessitate, 10 of the remaining millions SAMFRs left in circulation from falling into the wrong hands; it's ludicrous. Since Islamic terrorists and mass killers usually have very well planned attacks, the fact they may have to spend a little more time finding the right weapon, will certainly not mitigate the lethalology. Once it becomes obvious that ban on future sales accomplished nothing, the next push will be to confiscate SAMFRs, as it is the only reason the government would wants to register these rifles in the first place) rifles still in civilian hands (which also explains the historic near zero compliance), However, regardless of the oppressive nature of anti-gun zealots, it is pretty much accepted that any gun confiscated program would cause such civil unrest, that the deaths resulting from Islamic terrorism in the US, would be dwarfed by a factor of a 1000 or 10,000, making the saving of lives by banning SAMFRs, a moot point.

We know now that US intelligence had identified the last two Islamic terrorist attacks, but due to political correctness, they ignored them, instead their pushing for gun bans that have no past record of of working.  It's almost like the Administration is simply waiting for these Islamic terrorist attacks, so they can use them for fodder to ban guns, As Maureen Dowd would say, Sick Sick Sick!