>>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?
The EFFECTIVE rate of fire for well trained shooters with a M16 A3 (3 round bust) and later is 40-60 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"

I agree with exactly what the report says. You could also add the then current issued M14 rifle which in the automatic mode in anything except the prone position with a bipod was only good for "taking the tops out of pine trees"

As for the "All confirmed casualties...fatal " , any casualties that can probably left the battle area and others were helped or carried by their fellow soldiers.

>
>full report here: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/343778.pdf
>*
>Who, other than soldiers, needs this kind of stuff?
2nd Amendment. I don't need a reason.