That wasn't the point I was making - Edit 1
Before modification by TheCrownless at 21/12/2012 09:52:10 PM
Hunting rifles may be better at taking down one human at a time, but they aren't as good at taking down a classroom full of 5 year olds and since the sniper-with-a-hunting-rifle problem seems much less relevant than the deranged lunatic walking into a public place and firing as many bullets as possible hunting rifles get more sympathy.
Just a guess, but that might be why.
A person's rifle selection is somewhat purpose based but also has a lot to do with arm-length. I've got the length, for instance, to present an M16A4 at midnight (aim perpendicular to my chest) but most don't and need a carbine for the task. That's only relevant in body armor and those trained without it would feel just as comfortable with a long stock and barrel. For short range a shotgun is always ideal though and that's the standard hunting weapon. If your intent was to leave hunting weapons intact but crack down on those favored by spree killers you'd not succeed, they're effectively identical. People do not hunt with actual sniper rifles much.
Ultimately, with nearly any vaguely modern firearm, time between shots in primarily aiming, so full auto or not is fairly academic.
The reason people (and I'm not one of them, I'd ban them all fwiw) have problems with the AR-15 and semi-automatic pistols like the Glock is because they were designed to fire lots of bullets quickly, something you don't normally associate with hunting. I'm sure you can hunt with an AR-15 or a Bushmaster M4 but that isn't what people are referring to when they talk about 'hunting rifles' that should be allowed. I guess most people don't have a problem with owning a Remington M700 for instance, which is in no way identical to an WASR-10 for the semi-automatic pistols these shooters frequently use.