Which of these proposals regarding guns would result in less deaths?

[Captain Stern]

First of all, I know that neither of these proposals is Constitutional, and that there are so many guns in existence that neither of these proposals is really practical. This is more of a thought exercise, and something to discuss.

PROPOSAL 1: Eliminate all existing semi-automatic rifles, and ban the future sales of any semi-automatic rifles.

PROPOSAL 2: Eliminate all firearms except semi-automatic rifles, and ban the future sales of any firearms except semi-automatic rifles.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but I actually think the second proposal would save far more lives than the first one.

[Mister Ed]

1. Neither would result in less deaths. But could one result in fewer deaths?

To explain my joke: I'm using a technical quibble to distract from the main point of the discussion, in the manner employed by some gun enthusiasts on DU and elsewhere.

[Travis_0004]

2. Proposal 2

Assault rifles are used in less than 2% of all crimes involving a firearm.

[jmg257]

3. Ah never mind - saw "rifles" in the question on re-read...

[linuxman]

4. 2

Pistols are the leading cause of firearms death.

Basically a pulse shotings worth every 4 days, but nobody seems to care.

[Darb]

5. It's not about deaths, it's about the stiffy.

When reloading, an enthusiast loses his stiffy. Surely you can see the advantage of having a banana clip, yes? If you think of it in terms of hardwood, then you know that having the ability to emit the greater number of erectile projectiles the better.

Come on man, think of the dicks.