LAST EDITED ON 12-17-12 AT 02:24 PM (EST)

Hey, a lively discussion. About time.

To Pepe:

Yeah, there is a need for semi-automatic weapons in hunting. Maybe not like the human body needs sustenance, but ask any bird/waterfowl hunter who uses a semi-automatic shotgun (often incorrectly referred to as an automatic, thus compounding the confusion on this the issue). Which, incidentally is limited by wildlife regs. to three shells. Or ask any varmint hunter.

I‘m not familiar with hunting regs. in Canada, but I know there is a rich hunting culture there and I believe that banning semi-automatics there would not be something that Canadian hunters would tolerate.

Think of how many backwoods tragedies would occur if constables tried to check all backwoods hunter weapon collections and collect the semi-automatics.

In General:

Trying to ban semi-automatic hunting weapons (on the basis that they are simply “semi-automatic”) is futile; they have been in use for over a half century now. WWII GI’s brought them home (many many M-1 carbines, and maybe others). Many hunters prefer semi-automatic weapons, they are useful, and that second shot is often the difference between hunting success and failure, or between a wounded animal and a dead animal. When hunting, a dead animal is much the preferred outcome. Varmint hunters use semiautomatic guns almost exclusively. You just can’t hunt an animal on the move without a quick second shot available.

As for the assault weapons ban that expired recently (whenever it was), this was problematic also. I think the real problem there comes down to definition, because, except for the military add-ons like laser sighting, night sighting, etc, assault weapons are actually used for hunting. They are actually used as hunting weapons. So, again, apart from limiting magazine capacity, how could a law be crafted to differentiate the two?

Many hunters prefer the lighter, more accurate, less susceptible to field failures and corrosion, and higher impact so called "assault" weapons to more traditionally designed walnut burl stocked hunting weapons. In short, what makes a military weapon good for hunting a human enemy also makes an excellent weapon for sport hunting of animals. So, apart from mag capacity, what really is an effective difference that can be legislated so as to exclude "assault" weapons?

Over simplifying; banning a weapon that is labeled an 'assault" weapon would force the Mfg's to label it as something else (i.e. "hunting", or "target gun") more legal and ensure that there are some who would indeed use it as such. BTW, there are target gun classifications that require semi-automatic weapons.

So, you ban an assault weapon because of it’s military like appearance or heritage, and gun makers read the detail specifications of the law and design a weapon that is technically a hunting weapon (per legal definition). One that can be used with results just as deadly as any “assault" weapon.

If Mr Lanza had not had his mom's Bushmaster to choose from, would he have not grabbed one of her two "hunting" rifles? Or what if he only carried out his insanity with only the pistols, would the outcome been different? And what are the odds that they (his mom's hunting rifles) weren’t also “semi-automatic”?