>2.Turning a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon makes the weapon LESS effective. Did you know that the US military stopped buying AR15/M16 type weapons with full automatic capability 35 years ago. They do have 3 round burst capability but anything after the 3rd round was found to be basically a waste of ammunition.

How so? Is shooting into a crowd less effective at 400 rounds per minute than at 20 rpm?

>3.Any "gun" solution is nothing more than a " feel good" act and is just a waste of time. The "assault weapons ban" law which included weapons based on whether it had a bayonet stud or a pistol grip or a name such as "street sweeper" is a good example of such laws.

I'd say that an AR-15 adds a "feel bad" factor for mass shooters. Why can't we talk about controlling the real assault weapons (like the AR-15 - which was used as an assault weapon by US Special Forces in Vietnam - that is, and is advertised to look like one)?
*
Here is the Defense Dept Field Test Report for AR-15 citing that
"For the type of conflict now occurring in Vietnam, the weapon was also found by its users and by MAAG advisors to be superior in virtually all respects to the - a. M-1 rifle, b. M-I and M-2 SCarbines, c. Thompson Sub-machine gun and d. Browning Automatic rifle."
and
"The Combat Evaluation (Annex A ll) shows that all US Advisors and Vietnamese Commanders who participated in the evaluation prefer the AR-15 to any other weapon with which the RVNAF are now armed. The lethality of the AR-15 and its reliability record were particularly impressive. All confirmed casualties inflicted by the AR-15 including extremity hits, were fatal"

full report here: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/343778.pdf
*
Who, other than soldiers, needs this kind of stuff?