An automatic rifle fires as long as you hold the trigger down...

A semi-automatic rifle fires every time you pull the trigger but won't fire the next round until you let the trigger up... The NRA and their minions try as hard as they can to paint a military style semi-automatic as practically harmless... Wrong!!! I can fire a 30 rounds with a semi-automatic in way under 20 seconds...

Thanks for the elucidation, Bobert. It doesn't materially alter my point, though. You can fire the S-A at about 2 rounds per second. Given recoil, does anyone want to tell me that every shot is aimed? If it's not aimed fire, what is its purpose? It's not sport shooting, or hunting / vermin control. It's sprayed fire, intended to hit *roughly* where you're aiming. I cannot think of any purpose for that, except one only...

Comparison: Who, other than pdq (who I would not trust on this subject if he, metaphorically, told me that the sky is blue & grass is green), has used a bolt-action rifle? I've forgotten what the figure is for aimed shots per minute for a properly trained British Infantryman of the early 20thC i.e. just before WWI. I think it was about 10 round / minute. If you have any experience of firing a WHOLLY manual weapon, how many shots do you think you could get off in 10 seconds? Unaimed; spray 'em; I'm not asking you to aim, just fire as fast as you can...

The rifle has a very valid purpose; so does the pistol. I'm not sure, myself, about the validity of claiming the pistol can be used for hunting / vermin control (the former in a coup-de-grace role, yes). Certainly, both may be used in the sport sense, the rifle for H / VC. I would be more than happy to support their use, for those purposes, in ANY country where the law was reliable enough to properly regulate their use. Whislt I've no interest in them personally, I am not anti-gun. Just in case anyone hasn't worked that out yet.

Find me a use for a semi- or auto- that doesn't involve killing people. I've wracked my brains; I can't think of one. That should put them out of private ownership, without argument. "Because I want / am entitled to have one" is not an argument. It is an opinion; many people are of a contrary opinion.

Finally, something I hope you will find of interest, whether you agree with it or not. I have a friend (oh yes, I do! :p) who is entirely anti-gun. He has, on Facebook, been making statements. He got answers. He didn't like them. He said he didn't like debating. It was pointed out to him that, if he chose to speak in a public space (which is what Fb is), he would get answered. After about 3 goes he clarified what he wanted - opinions that he could think about. This is the result. One that I have to largely (if not unequivocally) agree with.

Further thoughts on the gun issue, offered for what they're worth.

The problem is not the people. People are who they are. Some are placid and pacifistic, some are hot-tempered and aggressive, some are frankly insane. Saying that they have a right to be who they are is irrelevant, since they will be anyway.

The problem is not the guns. Much though I hate them, and will never willingly touch or hold one, they are just artifacts, and some people in certain situations outside what I think of as "normal" do find them useful.

The problem is the arms industry, and the problem with it is that it's an industry. Industry in general is a real problem, because industry can only function under conditions of constant growth. Industry, in this context, means that there are large corporations which have machines running the whole time turning out guns. And each and every one of those guns represents an investment of time and money and resources which must be recouped, and that means each and every gun must have a buyer. If the machines were to stand idle, that would represent a consequential loss of money. So the arms industry, which is huge and powerful, must by its nature do everything in its power to create a demand for the guns which it is constantly making.

If that means funding an organisation whose sole purpose is to persuade people that it is their God-given right to own as many and as powerful guns as they can afford to buy, it will do that.

If that means creating or fostering an international climate in which war between nations is not only likely but inevitable, it will do that.

If that means causing a threat of economic collapse to engender fear and impel people to buy guns to "protect themselves," it will do that.

The arms industry is the real evil. That is what must be fought. If there is any other way of fighting it than by controlling and limiting people's right to own guns, I'd love to know about it.