states with stricter gun control have fewer mass shootings

so that's a no you can't prove that any specific gun type is more lethal when a person is shot in a vital place, ok, that's what I thought.

you want to ban semi auto rifles, pistols by their very nature have pistol grips so it's not an "extension"  since you want to ban all semi auto rifles those cosmetics are irrelevant to any significant advantage to those guns with out them, you've said so yourself.

what extensions did the hand gun mass murders have used these ban worthy extensions, same question you didn't answer the first time.

which is why I asked for clarification on what you consider "extensions" since cosmetics made no difference.

if these aren't extensions aren't cosmetics then you need to explain what you are talking about

I'm trying to understand why you think semi auto rifles and semi auto handguns are so demonstrably different one should be banned and the other should not.  

lethality can't be quantifiably measured that I know of, and you haven't shown that it can be.

Please explain why one is less lethal than the other (rifle vs handgun) because for the reasons I've given there is very little difference other than very specific instances.

Show me statistical real evidence that if person x had been shot with a handgun they would have survived.

you equated accuracy to more deadly, therefore you'd need or want to make the gun less accurate or remove accurate guns, which seems pretty unsafe for me for those lawful citizens who would be using them don't you think?

I claimed that differing gun types differ in lethality and proved so with physics. If your claim that this is not true, then you must provide evidence to show this. I do not accept your shifting of burden of proof.

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet.

“This is not really a property of the rifle itself. It’s a property of the ammunition. 

the fact that people have been killed with almost every caliber doesn't prove they are lethal?  again more legal isn't a real thing, can't be proved in the real world, a shot in the heart, dead, shot to the head dead, sure some "survive" so to speak but those are very rare and usually have permanent damage.

so this difference you claim just isn't a real thing, maybe in video games or on paper but not in these real situations.

sorry but those links...well, are yet again subjective and biased for not including important details

that's probably because he was using a target round and not a hollow point, they were lucky in is ignorance. 

so like I said, not the gun but the bullet, thanks for that LOL

if you are going to hunt large animals you need more muzzle energy which is mostly a function of the bullet.

while you need that to kill a bear or elephant that's not required for something smaller like a person which is why the whole lethality is bs. in real world situations.

so you are technically correct which doesn't matter because we aren't talking about large animals and what is on paper.

The FBI and police departments generally carry 9mm hand guns, don't you wonder why?  Do you believe they just shoot to wound like on tv?  This choice was done from ballistic studies the FBI has conducted to reach this conclusion.  So either they don't know what they are talking about or it's a very effective round.  sure you could go bigger but why?  You can hunt a rodents with an ak-47 but generally you don't because you don't need to.

so selective banning of semi auto rifles and not semi auto handguns just isn't logical.

you aren't understanding the realities of the ballistic tests for yourself and just having faith in what you read because you agree with it.

The ballistic cavity formed from rifles is pretty shocking, but if you consider that handgun rounds, while maybe not as shocking is still more than efficient to achieve the desired effects.  In other words what they are describing is "overkill" which is why they are used on large animals while smaller ones are not.  This is why I say dead is dead.  Just because the trauma may look worse the end result makes that irrelevant.  On the rare chance that the rifle bullet is the deciding factor that is a rarity which you aren't interested in by your words about other anomalies or rarities.

Whatever difference you seem to think there is, is minor at best.  

non hollow points tend to go straight through people, including rifle rounds.  Hollow points on the other hand is what makes the large wound cavities including handgun rounds which is evident by the ballistic tests.

this is why I find little difference between the effectiveness of rifles and handgun in actual outcomes.  

it is a direct result of bullet type and number used, everything else is minor.

so if you want to ban semi auto rifles, you should also want to ban semi auto hand guns for the very same reasons.

does that expand what you want to ban now?  doesn't seem very logical if it doesn't based on what you have previously said, wound cavities and all.

Agreed. Hollow point bullets tend to inflict more damage. However you have not shown the gun component is "minor". A hollow point bullet shot a rifle is likely to be more damaging than a hollow point bullet shot from a handgun. 

as ballistics show the non hollow point rifle round tends to pass through and not expand or cause a wound cavity as a hollow point, therefore handgun hollow point would have the potential to cause a significantly larger temporary wound cavity than the .223 (which is very small in comparison) that would pass straight through.  hollow point bullets of 9mm and above cause wound cavities all of which are deadly.  The variables to bullet expansion include but are limited to shot location, bullet type and even manufacturer.

all semi auto rifles with detachable magazines (does this include the smaller calibers like .22 and handgun calibers that happen to be in rifle form?

if a rifle does not have a detachable magazine but still fires the .223 round either in pump, lever or bolt action would those be approved

If a semi auto handgun with a detachable magazine is designed to fire the .223 round  but has a 9 inch barrel would those be approved?

You've answered your own questions here

Yes. 

why would you ban a .22 semi auto rifle but not all the handgun calibers 380 and higher, which are much more powerful?

an ar pistol isn't banned but a 9mm rifle that looks like an ar would be.  you may want to rethink this.

Troy Pump Action AR-15

is a pretty good reference since the links and discussion at one time or another has been about power or force, is there some foot pounds of force limit all guns would have to have or be under for the ban?

but now that we've established that rifles are typically more lethal than handguns we can move on.

It is commonly known to be atypical for rifles prove "more lethal" than handguns in the United States on whole, but I do not have access to the state by state or other demographic data to delve deeper.  Perhaps the majority of firearm related casualties differ from a piece of gelatin sentenced to the firing squad

but you aren't banning all rifles right?  just semi autos with detachable magazines, yes?

you aren't banning the round or placing a restriction of foot pounds etc so the only attributes left are semi auto with detachable magazines, correct?

You've already see the pump ar-15 look a like, do you think someone would make that pump action much easier and short so it could fire faster?  I sure think so.

if you look at the ballistics, again .380, 9mm etc handgun rounds also come in rifle form and depending on the round still don't compare to a .223 handgun, 357 magnum, 30-30 etc all more than sufficient to do what they are designed when you look at their wound cavities.

From what I have actually seen the bullet type is the major factor i.e. hollow point

It is commonly known to be atypical for rifles to prove "more lethal" than handguns in the United States on whole, but I do not have access to the state by state or other demographic data to delve deeper.  Perhaps the majority of firearm related casualties differ from a piece of gelatin sentenced to the firing squad

Commonly known by whom? Surely this common knowledge would result in actual evidence.

and rifles, but now that we've established that rifles are typically more lethal than handguns we can move on.