For clarity, I believe you are referring specifically to rifles only.
I've owned and hunted with semi-auto shotguns all my life. In PA, DE MD and several states further north.

Cognitive dissonance your name is Andy Holt. He is running background checks on the people he's giving away AR-15s to so they don't fall into the wrong hands, but is opposed to background checks. I feel like he believes what he's saying but he really can't see the middle way.

For deer, semi-auto was (is?) right out except in shotgun only areas.

NRA also got all Federal research into gun violence banned. Because violence promotes more gun sales. Those sales (not gun safety) is the only purpose of the NRA. Increasing murders due assault weapons means more sales and profits - the only purpose of the NRA.

Then how do you explain the dramatic uptick in semi-auto rifle purchases under Obama and Clinton? They should get Salesman of the Year award for all the guns THEY caused to be bought!

You demonstrated the problem. You told DanaC that Britain was subverted by a dictatorship in Brussels. Why did so many Britains voted for Brexit? Emotional fears and lies being a first thing heard, then the naive to only believed that what they want to hear.

Those who fear others need more guns because a jack-booted Clinton or Obama will take away all guns. They entertain their fears to even believe Isis is a greatest personal threat. Even more dangerous than a car. Not one fact justifies that fear. Does not matter. They need more big guns to even defend from Isis.

None one adult reason exists to believe that fear. But then not all adults think like adults. Many can be told what to fear. Then just know it must be true. For the same reason most all American adults *knew* smoking cigarettes increase health. The fearful were told Clinton and Obama would take away their guns. Virtually no one even recommends that. Irrelevant. Some adults are only emotional - entertain their fears. Anything that inspires that fear means a massive increase in gun sales. NRA virtually cultivates that fear.

Advertising targets those most easily brainwashed. Adults are suppose to learn facts before jumping to a conclusion. DanaC was told she was a victim of a jack booted EU Parliament. Fact that the EU is a parliament of elected ministers somehow never got learned. Facts just get in the way of entertaining more fears and urban myths.

And OJ Simpson was innocent.

The NRA actively cultivates that fear.

Pam, the reason for the uptick is the end in 2004 of the ill conceived assault weapons ban, which just arbitrarily picked some makes and models. After that it was easy to convince people another ill conceived farce would follow, so get 'em while you can..

FactCheck: Did the 1994 assault weapons ban work?

TL;DR: A very tiny bit. Criminals just switched to other large-capacity magazines. However, it dramatically prevented arbitrary mass shootings by the mentally deranged.

I don't see that at your link.
The problem with legislation is to define exactly what is prohibited, what the hell is an assault weapon? The old, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it", doesn't work.

In Orlando, the Sig Sauer MCX .223-caliber rifle's magazine capacity is 30 rounds. The Glock 17 9mm semi-automatic pistol has a standard magazine capacity of 17 rounds, but up to 33 is an option.

Banning the Sig but not the Glock will make us safer?

I was curious about this so I went and looked at stats. Here is a graph on homicides by weapon type over time. I have left off the years at the bottom.

The exercise: point to which year the assault weapons ban took place on this graph. Hint, the assault weapons are in the green category.

http://cellar.org/2016/homocidesbyweapon.jpg

Can't be done, that was the point of the Politifact write-up: it didn't noticeably reduce assault weapons usage or crime. But the statistically insignificant reduction, which may not have even amounted to a net reduction overall, nonetheless occurred within one narrow but interesting category of usage.

A + B = C

A is big and bad (criminals mostly killing criminals), B is small and abhorrent (nutjobs killing innocents and children.) Getting rid of B is still worthwhile, even if C is still effectively equivalent to A. The only question: is getting rid of B worth the trade-off of hunters having to hunt with low-capacity magazines?

What I don't understand is why B is the only discussion we can possibly have.

Handguns are like 3-4 times in greater use in killin', why not just try to make them $100 more expensive? If we're talking about incremental gains.

Or why not even try and change the culture, because that's what changed with that huge drop in handgun deaths, not the laws or law enforcement.

http://cellar.org/2016/homocidesbyweaponyears.jpg

That's the only question for YOU! Others realize that if you ban high capacity magazines in rifles and someone misuses a handgun with a high capacity magazine; then, you'll want to ban high capacity magazines in handguns. Then if someone practices rapid magazine changes with a rifle or handgun and goes berserk, you'll want to ban all semiautomatic rifles and handguns because they all take magazines. You'll want everyone to use lever action rifles and revolvers until someone abuses those and you find out that lever action rifles and revolvers hold the same number of rounds as low capacity magazines and there are speed loaders for them. Then when some nut case causes multiple casualties with those, you'll want everyone to have single shot bolt or breach action rifles and handguns at which point you'll point out that rifles are too powerful for home defense and you'll want them all locked up in expensive shooting clubs; also, that single shot handguns may not be all that useful for self defense, 'cause there are no magic bullets, so we might as well just do away with handguns entirely.

I've lived long enough to see localities ban semiautomatics and to see localities ban all handguns. I've seen pro-right to bear arms people give an inch only to have anti-rights people take a mile. It has happened even though the anti people gave assurances that they only wanted just that first little concession; because, they rationalize the end justifying the means. The trust is long gone on this issue except for the gullible and people who live in their own little worlds. If you say the progression I described above is far fetched, I just label you a quack. A pleasant and good looking quack; but, non-astute nonetheless.

PS: I didn't mention shotguns since everyone knows shotguns are only used by gangsters to mess up people's faces in revenge shootings.

PPS: Anyone with a 3D printer can make their own high capacity magazines. Plastic magazines are already in use.

So many "you"s in that post, your clairvoyance apparently precludes any need for a response.

It gets worse as urban populations grow and suburbs are so dense they might as well be called urban. A large portion of the people grow up with no Dad, Granddad, uncle or brother who hunt, and have never handled a gun. They are scared to death of them because they only hear about gangbangers and whackos going nuts. For these people the solution is simple, make guns, all guns, illegal and the problem will instantly vaporize. This group is growing every day.