>>But it did make a difference. Out of the 25 worst mass shootings (fatalities > 8) in the US since 1984, 15 occurred since 2004 (and only 3 during the ban).

I've only had a runny nose 3 times since I started carrying a red handkerchief. Therefore?

With respect- this feels to me like GOP "experts" talking about the perils of single payer healthcare when most of what they say is divorced from real world experience.

When statisticians examined the effect of the ban up to 2004 as best they could, the reluctant conclusion was that any improvement in firearm violence from the ban, was so low as to be un-measurable. Were they wrong? If not, why is it "obvious" that it will do better this time? Isn't one of the definitions of insanity to keep repeating the same behavior expecting a different result?

I suppose you could declare that only white kids being shot up at school matter and that black lives in inner cities don't matter, in which case you might declare that you can prevent semi-auto white kid slayings by removing access to semi-auto rifles. Never mind that the latest school shootup was by shotgun/handgun, it's "obvious" that a semi-auto weapon ban will prevent it and if you disagree, you have blood on your hands.

My expectation is that some sort of controls will be imposed on semi-auto weapons. Not just in the US: current suggestion in NZ is that some form of training sign-off ought to be involved. In the US there's precedent for a sales ban and very likely a house super majority, meaning even POTUS can't veto it if people insist he's a demon in the demon NRA's pocket. As to whether it will make a difference- I hope so. But I've already given the example of London passing NY earlier this year for murder rates, some involving illegal handguns that are not prevented by the UK's stringent controls, but more involving knives... and grenades now making a delightful appearance. My point is that "where there's a will there's a way" and I cannot understand the logic "lets ignore the will to do these things, instead lets remove one way we don't like." Right- a determined shooter-upper will never think of any other way of achieving their goal. Except that they will, as shown by my London example and the latest mass shootings in the US and Australia.

Now maybe you have stats showing that the incidence is still lower after a semi-auto ban- in which case great, I'm all ears! Because the irony is that I'm not even arguing against a semi-auto ban, just raising simplest queries that ought to be easily covered off if the idea is sound.