Pleas post any upside that is more “probable” than the downsides.
Increased recruitment and retention is more probable than any of your claimed downsides as supported by numbers everywhere it’s been done. Not claiming big numbers, just a non-zero number.
Every so called “benefit” of a semi auto rifle can be duplicated in the currently legal manual actions. The only thing that comes close is ease of gaining a higher rate of fire. Although this can be nearly matched with some skill and practice. The SA simply offers it to all shooters. As mentioned earlier it’s only “strength” is a huge weakness.
Find me one manually operated rifle that offers the modularity, reduced weight and reduced recoil offered by an SA in the same caliber at a similar price point. Good luck finding that unicorn.
There simply aren’t any facts to consider, admittedly on both sides. I will gladly give all due consideration to any FACT that proves the safety of semi auto center fire rifles when used for big game in PENNSYLVANIA.
Admitted by whom?
There’s plenty of facts and evidence confirming the safety of SA use on big game. Because said fact conflict with your personal viewpoint, you choose do dismiss them and declare them not applicable because the data was not obtained from PA. A false premise that defies all of accepted statistical and logical practices, all because of some yet to be explained visceral reaction.
All the facts have been laid out countless times over the course of these threads on the topic. Refusing to acknowledge them as facts lends continued credence to the thought that those opposed to SA are not approaching the subject from a rational, logical standing.