I thought I was being perfectly clear. - Edit 1
Before modification by TheCrownless at 21/12/2012 11:00:29 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 good hunting practice. 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, there is a clear difference between the design intent of a semi-automatic weapon like the AR-15 and a gun designed for long range single shot damage. 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.
FWIW, an AR-15 or pistol are like kid's toys compared to serious hardware, and most definitely do not 'shoot fast', compared to stuff like Mk-19's or M2's, which are still spitting distance from 'small arms'. Though admittedly the Mk-19 actually does shoot pretty slow, not that it matters.
As for hunting, nuts to that, I give a damn about hunting. I want a gun to defend myself from people, not deer, and people are stupid-hard to kill. I wouldn't give a snot if we outright banned hunting, I get guilty just chucking a rock at the deer who poach my tomatoes, but humans are another story. And frankly, if we had one of these schools shootings every day it wouldn't justify banning guns to me any more than free speech. Amendment 1 is the one that represents a free society, amendment 2 is the one that gives us teeth to protect it. And I know way to may cops, troops, judges, and legislators to ever trust them 100% to the task. You want total safety from the police, you need 3 cops for every single person, and then who the hell watches them?
I guess it comes down to respect. I respect most people to act sane with guns... albeit I've got no problem with mandatory (reasonable) training courses for them... and here's the key, if I didn't trust most people with the power of life and death, I sure as fuck wouldn't support a democracy. I mean, seriously, what is that, "I trust you with life and death decision for us all, but not those involving gunpowder"???
but apologies if I wasn't.
The rest of your post is clearly an idealogical view on the right to use firearms for self defence. The people who want semi-automatic guns banned but allow people to keep conventional hunting rifles obviously don't agree with you (on either that you should be allowed or if you are, that those types of weapon are necessary for it). I don't especially want to get into that here as it's not the place, you aren't going to convince me that I need a gun to protect myself (or that if the government or police wanted to get me having a firearm would help) and I doubt I could convince you otherwise.
Whether you agree with any of that doesn't really have any baring on the distinction between the semi-automatic rifles and pistols that dominate mass shootings and the rifles used more conventionally for hunting. I suppose you could argue about their use of the phrase "hunting rifle", but when it's clear which type of weapons that group is referring to it's largely a matter of semantics.