It is all about the amount of fear something generates relative to its actual threat. 250,000 deaths due to things like medical mistakes per annum, 64,000 deaths per annum due to overdoses and it hardly makes the news. If the threat is not statistically significant compared to other threats, then it is by definition, irrational...but I will not try to convince some silly woman standing on a chair because a mouse ran past her. 32,999 killed in auto accidents each year...2,000 of which are children. Ban cars and driving? As for it (AR-15) being used in almost "all" the mass shootings that is just anti-gun bullshit: [cga.ct.gov]

@dahermit More than half of all mass shooters had high capacity magazines, assault weapons or both, according to Mother Jones. I'm not anti-gun, just weapons designed and built to kill or maim as many people as possible as fast as possible.
I'm not going to argue with you, a federal appeals court ruled assault weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment.

@MikeFlora And many did not use "assault weapons", or high-cap magazines (Texas Tower shooter used a bolt action to kill 16, wound many). Therefore, a complete ban (on the manufacture of new and the 100% compliance of the surrender of all in existance) on "assault weapons" and high-cap magazines will not stop mass shootings...the very best that could be hoped for is a reduction in mass shootings. "I am not going to argue with you." is a childish response in a debate. The fact that a Federal Appeals Court ruled on the issue is a moot point inasmuch as only the Supreme Court has the final authority to rule on Constitutional issues...which also is a moot point inasmuch as the point my oringianl post did not raise the question of Constitutionality. "...weapons designed to kill or maim...", is a statement right out of the anti-gun handbook...a platitude short on fact and long on emotion. Get on your chair, there is a mouse on the floor.

@MikeFlora Yawwwn...once again, the federal appeals court is not the Supreme Court, which has the final say. And, Yawwwn....the original posting was not about the Constitutionality of certain semi-automatic weapons.