states with stricter gun control have fewer mass shootings

that's not possible, what I think could be a defining factor is something you mentioned before, capacity, since all guns can kill, one of the links I posted I think or I read somewhere talked about how many rounds people were actually shot with, I seem to recall the average was 1.  It's not like the majority of victims are shot 3 or more times generally.

well it's a right, you have to change minds to enforce your subjective legitimate use.  Though you could define what you think is legitimate.

sure, ok, what's the number of mass shootings that tolerable?  How about murders per year while we are at it, what's the number that's acceptable?

Really? What if I were to rank gun features by their contribution to the lethality of a gun, rank guns in respect to those features and scale by their contribution?

we must settle for a figure that's lower than what it currently is.

Any improvement is better than no improvement at all

Any improvement is better than no improvement at all

Are people only killed in numbers of 4 or more only worthy of protection and consideration for intervention?

go for it

which is?

then why not ban the weapon used to kill the most people per year?  Are people only killed in numbers of 4 or more only worthy of protection and consideration for intervention?

"The NRA estimates ->

<-

my math might be a little off but really doesn't change the context

do you see why I don't think this ban is actually based in reality?

So I believe any approach to guns should be made carefully and incrementally so as to raise the least objection possible.

you continue dancing around it, but all roads lead to a gun ban, that's the whole point, you start small, then add, then add as you said,  then until for all practical purposes it's a gun ban.

 Your focus on less than half a percent, yet seemingly ignoring 99.7% of the deaths isn't logical to me, thus you are in an emotion position.

To have any noticeable, appreciable difference on something that small isn't possible statically.

This plan has nothing to do with saving lives obviously, the figures prove that well enough, otherwise the focus would be on the 75% part of the problem.

Let's say through the perfect scenario that those 24 mass shootings from assault rifles disappears, you'd be satisfied and the rest, 70, are acceptable?  If not how do you plan to address the 70 left over? 

there's been a strong objection to the ban since it was first ever talked about LOL

The only decision now is whether to address the 70 mass shooting events that didn't involve assault weapons. 

Gun ban would imply all guns. 

Well there's nothing left right? The objective has been achieved within the set parameters.

so then it would or would not be addressed?  and how would it be addressed now that the assault weapons aren't an issue anymore?  is there anyway to deal with the 70 without banning yet more guns?

assuming you aren't being pedantic, when people refer to that they are talking about banning semi automatic weapons since they make up a majority of firearms.  Yes if one gun existed then in the strictest sense it wouldn't be a total ban, but I have never said or even eluded to, that it would be a complete ban.

Sure. Think of most tame semi-automatic handgun you can think of. Then think of all the ways in which you could extend this gun to make it more lethal. Imagine those extensions are banned. The resulting gun, despite being a semi-automatic gun will not be banned.

hmm ok well let's say instead of all 24, there was oh I dunno 22 less, and just 2 assault weapons mass murders in 37 years, would it be ok to stop banning stuff at that point?

Think of most tame semi-automatic handgun you can think of. Then think of all the ways in which you could extend this gun to make it more lethal. Imagine those extensions are banned. The resulting gun, despite being a semi-automatic gun will not be banned.

And the answer would be probably why the hell are you asking me? I was only ever in charge of preventing mass shooting related deaths due to assault weapons.

What's your point? Strong objection is not mutually exclusive with also having the least objection possible

the 70 mass murders didn't have any "extensions" that made them more lethal, so then what?

I don't understand the logic of why stop at 24 when there's 70 more, don't their lives matter and their grieving families?

once that objection is gone there's always another right?

Let's assume they didn't. In which case we should separate the outlier cases in which more than the average number of people were shot and examine case by case the circumstances and gun features that allowed this to happen

so now you'd have to expand that ban to include semi auto hand guns and the ban I talked about way back.

Once you can rationalize banning something that's statically insignificant it would be easy to go after the significant ones.

To go after the lion's share of mass murders would require banning semi auto hand guns.

From my perspective nothing has to be done outside of what has been examined in the significant mass shooting events involving semi-automatic handguns.

Explain to me how 1/3 of mass shootings involving semi-automatic weapons is statistically insignificant in regards to mass shootings

On the other-hand, going after the lions share of mass murders is not the objective of this ban. And you know this, because I've already told you this from the start, and it's what I've constantly reinforced from the start.

-AK 47s banned nationwide.

-Teachers are allowed to arm themselves with any legal gun to defend their classroom

Good idea, and lot of other guns. Replace them with smart guns.

so no semi-automatic bans ever, except for assault weapons then, is that what you are saying?

it's insignificant in regards to all murders.

I believe you agreed and or understand cosmetics like a barrel shroud, pistol grip, thumb hole stock etc does not make the gun any more or less lethal, if you think otherwise please explain.

this is a "ruger mini 14 ranch hand rifle" https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.vc8JYnIumh2fOF6Uh6V6DAEsB1&pid=15.1&P=0&w=465&h=183

if the link doesn't work you can search up those words

You already know what an ar-15 looks like

One would(was in 94) be banned the other would(wasn't in 94) not, now imo you're pretty smart even though we may disagree, so I'm sure you can see where this is going in that they both fire the exact same round .223 and both have the ability to use whatever size magazine someone can buy,make,modify etc.

If we agree that cosmetics make little to no difference and I hope we do, then the ban was never logical to begin with and was based on an emotional fear because of how something looks.

There's plenty of videos of law makers talking about guns who haven't the slightest clue about guns and reality.  

https://youtu.be/iJmFEv6BHM0

these are fools you are asking us to trust and the people who believe him and people like him, but I digress

let's try to settle the cosmetic features since that seems to be the linchpin of classification.

But it has nothing to do with my proposed ban

You can argue that parts of the original ban were illogical, but you cannot extend this to the entire ban itself. The actual ban itself was based n the understanding of less possession of assault weapons, less likelihood of assault weapons to be used in mass shootings and this is perfectly logical. 

I'm afraid your proposed ban still isn't clear

except that those parts identified what could be banned, otherwise it would have included all semi auto rifles if not all semi auto weapons

so again explain how this isn't a semi auto ban if you aren't banning cosmetics

please define "assault rifle"  "assault weapon" and their differences to each other and to non "assault rifles and weapons"

So you have no idea what or how this ban would be, but as I said before you want me to take it on faith of the experts, whom ever they are. Are the experts the ones who banned the cosmetics or are ignorant of guns and how they function?  You can't define what would and wouldn't be banned  but as I said you want people to take it on faith that these experts can. Who would be a better expert than those who know guns?  There's a lot of experts in the NRA. 

And yet, obviously the first ban had little to nothing to do with experts, hence the cosmetics ban but we are to have faith this time will be different, just have faith. 

You haven't come up with a ban but some theory that you have faith in experts to come up with.

Yet experts haven't and aren't even trying to come up with a ban like you try to describe  The politicians on the other hand are the only ones who talk about bans.  Now  of course the exprts you talk about would be only the ones you agree with. 

I mean, experts in guns would typically come out in favour of gun would they not?

it seems this has reached it's end, your proposal could only work in theory but not reality, there's no way to remove 10million+ "assault" weapons from the general public without military and law enforcement intervention, threat of force, violence etc, going house to house, basically creating a military state, if you wished to see any effect if your life time, otherwise it's pretty pointless.