assault weapon ban again

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

As was previously stated, but I haven't personally confirmed it, there have been 0 instances of legally owned automatic weapons being used in a massacre. I don't understand why people grasp onto something that has never happened in 75+ yrs? But hey, if it makes you feel better about there being less carnage, go for it. I have heard worse fallacies.

I can easily see a ban on fully automatic assault weapons just to appease the folks that want a ban on them (as I stated). It will help 0 though in what is the real problem (and I am in the camp it's more the mental issues going untreated). No one in their right mind goes on a shooting rampage against un-associated people.

Sorry, Leon - I didn't see the previous weapon to 'automatic'. I'm talking about the firepower needed to kill the wild hogs, which I think is around 40-60 rpm, according to the wild hog hunters on this board.

I totally get the fixation on the word 'automatic' by both sides - the non-gun people don't understand the term, and the gun people will fixate on the use of that term to avoid dealing with the issue, which is mass-killings by guns that aren't actually necessary for hunting, self-defense or anything else other than mental [male member] enlargement. Just my thoughts - I'm all for citizens being able to own guns - BIG guns. Just not that big.

Edited to add: I was responding to "automatic (or semi automatic) weapons". I thought 'semi automatic' was the term used for the 40-60 rpm guns such as the one used by the killer in Connecticut? If not, what are such weapons called?