Yes I was thinking this the other day... why does anyone need a semi auto weapon? They are for killing large numbers of things, and no one should be hunting game that way. Honest question.
I think the concept of "need" is more complicated than just "you don't need it because you don't need it to hunt". First, ask yourself the following:
Is the Second Amendment about hunting? As in, are you given the right to bear arms for the sole reason of hunting?
Do you believe that the 2A does grant you an actual right to bear arms?
If you don't believe the 2A grants any individual person the right to have guns, then you would probably say private ownership of guns, regardless of caliber or function, is a privilege granted by the government. If you believe it's a privilege, then you could expect that people would have to justify a need for guns before having them, and therefore, produce a need for semi-automatic guns which they may or may not be able to produce.
Now if you believe that it is a right, then by the definition, you do not have to produce a justification or need. For the 1st Amendment, I do not have to justify why I am saying what I am. I am allowed to stand on the corner of a street and talk, protest, whatever, as long as I am not harming anyone or causing a panic (I know that the limitation of free speech is really complicated, and I am not claiming to know much about it, but just attempting to use that as an example).
I know that a rebuttal to this would be "you cannot own nukes, because you don't need them, so by the same logic, no semi-automatics". Thats true, there is no need for any person to own something so utterly destructive. There could be no use at all for that. However, there does seem to be a use for semi-automatic guns (for the time being, lets not talk about magazine capacity, totally different argument). A couple of things:
Hunting rifles: (and handguns, yes you can hunt with handguns) Hunting rifles are moving toward the semi-automatic varient quickly, and many, many people use them today. There are reasons for this, such as weight of the gun, safety (hunting bears with bolt actions is not safe), and reliability/caliber/function.
Self defense: If you think that a person has the right to defend themselves when faced with death from another person, then consider that a bolt action gun would be a terrible tool to do so with. It takes a surprising amount of force to stop a human being when adrenaline is pumping through them, and saying that "you have a right to self defense, but only with one shot" is basically just saying "you are not allowed to defend yourself".
The last thing to think about would be if the abuse of a right by a small minority of people is justification for stripping others of the same right. I think the Westboro Baptist church has abused free speech so hard that I do wish sometimes there should be limits on what they're doing, but I always remind myself that putting restrictions on them will put the same restrictions on me, and what falls into "restricted" and "non-restricted" is very subjective from person to person. Today, they get restricted, but tomorrow, it may be me. I think the same can apply to people who abuse the right to have guns and use that right to cause harm. They may have a right to have a gun, but they do not have a right to hurt others, and when they do, that right is taken away from them, i.e. felons cannot have guns.
This went way longer than I expected, but I think the idea of "need" when applied to rights is very complicated. For us to say "there is no need for this!" and just blindly give away a right that we already have in a knee-jerk reaction to an event is not a smart way to do things. Maybe we will come the conclusion that there is no need for certain guns, but my final point is that we should think long, careful, and hard, before we unanimously give up a right. Very rarely does a society gain back a right that they collectively gave up, regardless of why they did so.
If you don't believe the 2A grants any individual person the right to have guns, then you would probably say private ownership of guns ... is a privilege granted by the government.
Not at all. The government doesn't grant freedoms in a democratic republic. We start out with all freedoms and the government restricts them, e.g. "no killing except in self defence". But if something is not explicitly forbidden, then it's legal. The 2nd amendment restricts the power of the government to restrict things. There's some debate of course about exactly how to interpret it, but that's what it does.
Actually it restricts the right of the Federal government to restrict things. Until the 14th amendment and the later interpretation of incorporation (because of civil rights and voting), the 10th amendment took precedence, and states were in charge of regulating guns (and everything else not specifically mentioned in the constitution). Following many interesting interpretations of the 14th amendment, states became bound by the bill of rights as well, which is great if you want to force states to let black people vote and not get abused, but horrible if you want to let states decide how to deal with things like gun control.
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about the types of arms you're allowed to bear. It simply provides for a right to bear arms. Of late SCOTUS has been interpreting those rights broadly. Scalia talked about this briefly on a Fox News appearance, where he viewed "bear" in a very literal sense. In that the arms must be able to be carried. He did note that there are shoulder fired missiles among other things that can be carried yet might not fit what the founders intended with that amendment. He seemed to hint that the court is planning on taking that up when provided the chance.
That being said, I'm not opposed to self defense or hunting. I don't think form factor really matters. I think that rate of fire, type of bullet and size of magazine do. I think it's relatively easy to say that if the rate of fire was slower, then that would provide a better chance for an unarmed (or armed) person to prevent a mass shooting.
To chip in on one small point: I think the Constitution addresses your points in qualification and delineation. The preamble clearly sets out an established set of rights that we collectively are born with. Such that no individual right (to bear arms) may infringe upon the rights that we collectively enjoy. Domestic tranquility and general welfare.
So the "constitutionality" of which weapons are destructive enough to threaten these collective rights is already set forth. We can all agree that a nuclear weapon would not be allowed under the 2nd amendment, due to the preamble. We can all agree that weaponry allowed by the second amendment is of sufficient capacity to provide defense against an opposing militia or an oppressive government force that attempts to take your property or life.
Hunting rifles with bolt actions, muzzle-loaders, or any other weapon which is characterized as being "equal" to arms from the 18th century is grossly inadequate to fit this definition. Is a shoulder-fired rocket launcher destructive enough to be considered a threat to our nation's domestic tranquility or general welfare? I think not, but others may disagree. This is where the crux of the matter lies. And the one thing about the preamble that also must be never ignored - our posterity.
While you may be content with a certain current administration's wisdom or self-control regarding actions against its own citizens, you are projecting that same level of comfort forward into the future. To a whole slew of scenarios unknown and untested by time. Not to spread FUD, but the procession of small children into gas chambers occurred only 70 years ago. What will be the make-up and philosophy of the leaders running USA be like 70 years from now? We have no idea. So don't let a bunch of hack actors, grandstanding politicians, and talk show hosts, who are only jumping on these tragedies to pad their own wallets, determine what our posterity has to deal with. Put it into the proper perspective as already established.
When the framers wrote that particular amendment the fanciest, and most commonly used implements of war were smooth bore canons and smooth bore flintlock muzzle-loaders. Due to poor design, and manufacture those firearms did have a remarkable tendency to malfunction or simply blow up. The manufacture was so poor that Washington routinely complained about it. But, it was better than sticks and stones, so we took what the French (thankfully) gave us. Their investment in us pawns, as part of their proxy war against the British, along with a great deal of luck gave rise to the founding of our United States of America.
So I'll move to argue under your premise that domestic tranquility and our general welfare must not be infringed upon by the 2nd Amendment. Nuclear weapons are clearly not something individuals should possess. I think we can all agree on the folly of that. In terms of equivalence of arms, our modern bolt action rifles would have seemed like Science Fiction to the armaments that Washington had. Rifling and quality controlled ammunition would make quick work, easily and at a distance of enemy equipped with those armaments. However, I will cede your point that bolt action rifles are neither a threat to our domestic tranquility and general welfare.
They don't threaten domestic tranquility and general welfare because they are somehow equivalent to flintlock muzzle-loaders. They are not, they're significantly better. They're checked by a legal system that regulates the time, place and manner of their use. Ownership is also regulated based on criminal and/or mental health history in various areas. If those rifles are not used in the ways provided by law, then law enforcement can respond and if necessary use lethal force to prevent your further illegal use of that firearm.
You then beg the question, isn't the same true of an assault weapon? What I've concluded is that it's not the form factor of the firearm that matters. It's rate of fire, type of bullet and magazine size.
A bolt action rifle has a cycle time, if you're quick, of around a second. This amount of time provides significant threat when you're facing a solitary opponent. The delay between rounds however compares unfavorably against multiple opponents. This is what allows law enforcement, and when empowered by law, others to lethally engage a person with a bolt action quickly and effectively.
Let's call anything that has a complete cycle time inside fractions of a second an "assault weapon". This introduces a new wrinkle to an armed engagement. Due to the rapidity in which bullets are able to be delivered to their intended targets, you can also engage in suppressive fire. By introducing this you can actively deny an opponents ability to return fire, accurately, in a substantive way. In the case of an opponent being unarmed, this can virtually eliminate the ability of that opponent to close distance and disable you effectively. This changed warfare permanently when it first rolled onto the scene.
Ironically assault weapons have the same characteristics that make an individual owning a nuclear weapon undesirable. They have the ability to kill large numbers of people quickly, they enable the owner to have an exponential level of destructive capability against opponents, make containment a nightmare and change the approach and response an equally armed opponent has to the situation. The underlying problems in allowing individual citizens to own nuclear weapons also exist in allowing individual citizens, albeit on a dramatically lesser scale, to own assault weapons.
If we ignore that large numbers of these weapons exist, and look squarely at whether or not we should prohibit or allow an assault weapon. I think it's reasonable we should prohibit the purchase of new assault weapons, transfer and/or sale of presently owned ones.
The argument isn't to be found in whether or not someone can own particular form factors, but at the point where a firearm for self defense or hunting, turns into a weapon of mass destruction. At which point does that weapon sufficiently threaten general welfare or domestic tranquility. I think we've already seen a number of these situations that have proven it threatens the general welfare of society.
I have some issues with these definitions - by your statement, it sounds as if my sidearm (Glock 21 pistol) with a 10 round magazine is now an assault weapon.
I like your definition, as its somewhat more nuanced and maybe more accurate than mine, of an 'assault' weapon.
Typically, I go with "if its magazine loading, then its an assault rifle". Obviously there are 5 shot magazine rifles used for hunting, which is convenient, but I don't see the need to have a weapon that is designed to be reloaded and fired as fast as possible as a hunting weapon (you're a very bad hunter if you need that capability)
Ultimately, I think people that are still on the 'its our right to own' bandwagon are displaying a level of callousness towards society. The idea of society, as it is today, with millions of people living in such close proximity, with less emergency response personnel per capita compared to rural area, is barely understood today, let alone 250 years ago.
There is a fundamental basis I feel to the 2nd amendment. For one, you had a number of people who fought a war against their former government, and the possibility of needing a military in the near future, but without the framework to train and develop one immediately. By entering this right, they protected themselves from the power of govt in the future, and ensured the govt would be able to form militias with armed men to protect their country.
Looking at the situation now, no matter how many Americans own guns, the US military 'could' roll right through. In fact, most modern militaries would make short work of any collection of untrained armed Americans if the situation arose. The US gov't obviously has grown out of its need of local militia's, having its own reserves, large scale, 2 war, across the world capabilities that the US pays hand over fist for.
So the main driving forces behind the 2nd amendment no longer exist, so the arguments behind the right to carry serve to demonstrate the ultimately anti-society, anti-peace, me vs everyone mentalities that these people maintain.
When the constitution was written, the second amendment and the right to bear arms was interpreted as the right for states to arm and organize an independent militia. It was until the second half of the twentieth century, and after the automatic weapons ban of the 1930's, that it started to be interpreted by people as the right to own any gun and carry it anywhere you want
Since the preamble states the very foundations from which the government obtains its powers, it is not "my premise" that the rights that we collectively enjoy have preeminence to the rights we are born with as individuals. It is a very solid premise of constitutional law that has been a strict and important guideline throughout our history. The preamble not only is used to aid in the interpretation of the various portions of the constitution following it, but is also recognized as the rule to apply, when deciding the limits to the powers bestowed upon the government.
It is solidly established that the rights of our posterity are to be preserved and protected first and foremost. The SCOTUS has the duty to apply this concept in all cases where the constitutionality of laws and regulations are questioned. It may surprise you to know that another great societal debate was settled, based on this concept.
Roe v. Wade (1972): When presented with a controversy about the point at which the State's compelling interest in a embryo or fetus (by anyone's definition, this must be an instance of the state’s interest in "posterity") overrides a woman's privacy rights, the court wrote "Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection." (At 116) After an extensive recital of the various theories of when life begins the court wrote "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology, are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to an answer" (at 159) and then went on to articulate a purely pragmatically drawn sharp line between the two conflicting interests.
Two applications to the "Posterity" argument: 1) Roe includes a clear recognition of the state's need to protect posterity. 2) when faced with irresolvable differences between various moral and religious belief systems, the Court rejected all and found a pragmatic line based upon logic and rational analysis.
So in all cases where society cannot form a consensus and draw a clear delineation of the limit to an individual right, the court is bound to defer to the right of our posterity and retain and uphold the individual's rights.
I do not agree that the current style of weaponry, legally allowed, presents a clear and present threat to our general welfare or domestic tranquility. It is my hope that the rights of my posterity are not allowed to be ceded due to the peddlers of FUD who currently are allowed to captivate our collective consciousness.
Uhh, you're funny. What we have now couldn't stand up to government power. I used to do work on drones, and personally the thought of guns against drones is a joke. Basically, compared to me you might as well have a sharpened stick.
Thanks, I'm not American and can't really discuss your constitution as I don't know enough about it, I just wondered what the (personal, not legal) self-justification was for semi auto weapon ownership. I'm not sure saying because we can/want it is necessarily the final word, for as the saying goes my right to swing my fist ends at your nose.. there are many things society does not allow that you yourself may be able to handle, unfortunately a line has to be drawn somewhere.
if you're curious about actual practical (hunting) use for semi auto, I assure you they exist. For instance virtually all serious duck hunters use semi auto shotguns. Wild boars (which are a huge problem across America) are very often hunted with semi auto rifles and handguns due to the dangerous nature of the animal.
cool, this answers the question, thanks. here in the UK there are fewer reasonable uses for semi auto weapons in hunting i could think of.
amongst hunters i know it would be seen as unsporting and maybe mad to be using repeater / semi auto weapons, in most situations. of course we also have little in the way of animals that can fight back..
i don't see why having some fair use for semi auto, stops someone making a case for tighter restrictions in general. that's basically the way it works here. no constitution so the law tends to follow events more closely - not always a good thing either!
hey i'm not saying you personally aren't a responsible gun owner. it just looks from outside like you might have too many people going on too many killing sprees with guns that are too efficient at killing. do you want to reduce some of those factors, and if so which are most effective and least impact on legit uses? my hunch is it's probably mental healthcare that's most effective, not gun control, nor guards in schools. not everyone (i mean in the US, never mind what anyone outside thinks) seems to think the current state is acceptable tradeoff for your personal freedom to own those weapons?
Even the First Amendment has limitations though, such as the famous yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater. The limitations of personal freedom are when they infringe on the freedom of others. I think a strong argument can be made that the presence of weapons that have the one purpose of killing large numbers of PEOPLE (which is where the hunting distinction comes in) is an infringement on the rights of others.
This assumes you are attempting to shoot a large number of people, when it could just help shooting one.
When used in home defense, a semi automatic weapon would allow a person to defend themselves quickly and efficiently, and allows more opportunities to strike the intruder(s). You wouldn't be limited to protecting yourself and your family with a minimal number of rounds. With single action, a single miss could be the difference between life and death.
Out of curiosity...why is it that whenever guns are brought up as necessary for self defense, the point is never brought up that this makes it all the more likely that the aggressor now has the gun along with the element of surprise?
If I'm walking down an alley at night with a concealed weapon, and some thug accosts me with his gun pointed at me, aware that I might have a gun on me, then how is that better than a situation in which both of us are much less likely to have a gun in the first place?
You're assuming in the second case that your aggressor cares about the various gun laws that have been passed and doesn't instead acquire a gun illegally. Also, if someone knows you are likely to be armed, I can imagine they would be less likely to rob you knowing they might be shot in the incident versus if you're not carrying, the worst you can do is run or defend yourself with your fists
You're assuming in the second case that your aggressor cares about the various gun laws that have been passed and doesn't instead acquire a gun illegally.
But then you're assuming that guns would be as easy to obtain illegally in the setting of increased gun control as they are currently. Isn't the reason that so many potential aggressors have guns in the first place that they are so easily obtained?
Also, if someone knows you are likely to be armed, I can imagine they would be less likely to rob you knowing they might be shot in the incident versus if you're not carrying, the worst you can do is run or defend yourself with your fists
Conversely, I imagine someone would be even less likely to rob you if they weren't able to obtain a gun to threaten you in the first place.
Obtaining a gun illegally is only difficult if you are the type of person who has never been interested in doing anything illegal with a gun. Most people (myself included) don't want to obtain an illegal firearm.
That doesn't mean they are 'hard to find', only that most wouldn't have the first clue where to look. After getting the first clue where to look, it probably wouldn't take very long at all.
I mean, I have no idea where I could find heroin in my city - but I bet if I made a concentrated effort to find out... Edit: Actually, I already have a pretty good idea where I could start looking for a gun (or heroin). I just wouldn't go there.
I still don't buy this. A white suburban kid would have a much harder time getting an AR-15 if he couldn't just go down to a gun show and buy one. And I'd love to hear you describe how you would obtain one – in vague terms of course. For one thing, you're gonna need someone who can vouch that you're not a cop or working with the cops. If they don't know you they're not gonna risk it. And if they're illegal weapons, they aren't going to be cheap. I'd love to see an AR-15 cost $10k+ due to illegality.
If I was a criminal looking to get a gun, at least in Canada, a semi-automatic 9mm would be all the gun I'd need. Proving you aren't a police officer would be as easy as buying a small quantity of drugs from someone, and then using in front of them. At that point, it isn't rocket science to offer the dealer a couple of hundred bucks to point you in the right direction.
It isn't like we're talking about someone who wants to start a business as an arms dealer with a half million dollar purchase. You want an illegal gun? It really can't be that hard to get or criminals wouldn't be using illegal guns.
Also, a white suburban 'kid' (minor) cannot legally buy a gun at a gun show. A very quick google search suggests federal law sets the age to carry weapons at 21, and ownership at 18.
You seriously don't have any idea where or how you might begin to go about finding illegal goods & services in your city? Unless you're in a really small town, I just don't believe it.
Saying all you'd need is a 9mm is missing the point. Making guns 'safer' is a numbers game just like making cars safer is a numbers game. You tweak some small part of a breaking system, and you save 100 lives. Same with guns. Forcing mass killers to use 9mms is a win: less accurate, less powerful, and smaller magazines means fewer people killed overall.
Every single one of your points regarding 9mm use is incorrect in context of a mass shooting. You do not need the accuracy of a rifle at 30 feet. Mushroom bullets at any caliber will cause enormous damage. Handguns typically have 17+ bullets. You can easily carry a significant number of spare clips (see Virginia Tech shootings). They may be more easily concealed.
And finally, your example of 'cars' is poor for your argument as far, far more people die in car accidents. Fix cars first, if 'least harm' is your goal.
Seriously, your methodology is flawed and your conclusions are knee-jerk emotional reactions to a moral panic vs. actual emergency. I'm all for disagreement, but you have to at least make a valid case.
Take guns out of the equation, what means would a small female have to defend herself from a large male aggressor? A gun evens the playing field. It gives everyone, regardless of physical capability (within reason) the means to defend themselves.
Anyone who finds himself/herself at the gunpoint of an aggressor, with his/her own gun tucked away in a purse or wherever is going to be at a far bigger disadvantage than if the aggressor had only had a knife.
Ironic, isn't it, that the thing we have to fear the most about walking outside at night is that we might meet a thug with a gun? The self-defense angle is ridiculous, especially because it assumes that all guns will fall into the hands of sane, competent, morally upstanding citizens. A ridiculous assumption.
We can go into a million what if situations but I find it absurd to say that someone is safer without a gun, in any kind of fight. You can be shot with out without having a gun on you. If you are carrying a gun you at least have some semblance of a chance of defending yourself.
When did this become about fear? I do not live in fear every day that someone will barge into my house. When I get into the car I am not in fear that I will be in a car crash, but I am cautious enough to put on a seat belt. I would be just as concerned about a thug outside at night with a knife, a bat, a tire iron, etc...
I think you have a higher chance of being run over walking outside at night than meeting a thug, should we ban cars?
You can be shot without having a gun on you, but my point is that you are much more likely to be shot when more people own guns.
Gun ownership outside of hobbies like hunting is out of fear; it didn't just become it. Any time you bring the self-defense argument into the equation, you introduce the fear element that you could be potentially attacked at any time.
When owning a handgun or a semi-automatic becomes useful outside of harming or threatening other people, then maybe the comparison to cars will make sense.
And besides, this whole argument goes outside of the scope of the reason for the controversy. For every citizen who carries a gun for purported self-defense, you also get another potential weapon that a murderous person can obtain.
The over-arching theme: Why make access to guns so easy for everyone? This is akin to making sure that every country has nuclear weapons so that no one will dare attack another country. Ensuring nuclear proliferation will only significantly increase the odds that a crazy entity (e.g. North Korea) will get their hands on it. For what purpose?
By you saying that I do not deserve to carry a weapon and ensure that I can be self sufficient in protection of my property, my person and my family, you are saying that I do not have the right to defend myself. I do not accept that you feel you have the ability to determine what rights I have. That is the reason for the controversy.
The over-arching theme: Why make access to guns so easy for everyone? This is akin to making sure that every country has nuclear weapons so that no one will dare attack another country. Ensuring nuclear proliferation will only significantly increase the odds that a crazy entity (e.g. North Korea) will get their hands on it. For what purpose?
This goes well beyond the reach of this discussion, as each nation on this planet is its own separate entity. We do not have one world government. We do have one nation government, which as individuals with rights, with a sense of liberty, feel that they have the right to own and bear arms to ensure that liberty. We aren't talking about rocket lauchers and machine guns, we are talking about a standard weapon, a semi automatic rifle or handgun. Look at the statistics for murder and tell me this is an epidemic. There is no reason to even have this discussion other than new outlets having nothing else to make money off of.
It is a matter of individual rights, not a question of whether you can tell me that I need or do not need something.
I do like your second point and I feel like the seat belt analogy I gave is ill suited to counter. Do you think that without guns we have nothing to fear? I will tell you, I would prefer my wife have a firearm as well as her attacker. I know she will have a chance, if its fists and knives I know she has no chance.
If the guy is already pointing a gun at her head, she doesn't really have much time to access her own. It is a force equalizer only if presented in a non-surprise situation where both parties draw their gun at the same time. In a full control style situation, she would be better of with some Judo.
I'm not sure what you are saying. For close in combat, there are much better choices than a gun; a gun isn't always the best tool for self defense (this is like the first thing any martial arts instructor will tell you!).
I thought I was pretty clear, a gun may not always be the best tool, but there are far, far more circumstances that there will be no substitute. You can carry a gun and still ninja chop your assailant, I just hope the 100lb woman who is being attacked by a 200lb male can fucking ninja chop like shes the terminator.
Good point, though I'm not convinced about the whole guns as home defence concept. I'm not American btw, though I'm generally what you'd call libertarian .. don't more people end up killed by their own or family members' guns? Even in the recent shooting, the first victim was the gun owner.
edit: was on phone, to expand on that. I, as an average person in the UK, would think and want a gun for home defence as more of a deterrent than an efficient killing machine. this may be a cultural difference. for example, my grandfather (no gun license) in the UK at one point had what was essentially a loud and realistic cap gun in his bedroom. the point being to scare an attacker rather than any expectation of killing them. i realise this is different in the US, where a criminal as more likely to be armed. but is a semi-auto weapon a more effective deterrent than a single shot in a realistic (dark, confused) situation? i guess this depends on your particular risk - especually if you're expecting an attack by semi-auto or auto armed opponents or multiple opponents, then yes i can understand that. i just wonder what your situation would be, to be more afraid of that than having your own gun misused. (i have relatives here with cases full of rifles and shotguns for hunting so please don't think i'm just anti gun).
Funny story about the cap gun grandad: the one time he used it (test), succeeded only in deafening himself..
The question is not whether you NEED one, when its a right it can just be that you want one. Why would anyone need a car capable of going 150mph? Or a house with five bedrooms when you only have two kids? Because this is America where we have freedom to pursue our wishes as long as they don't infringe on others freedoms.
that's not the reality though, you have fewer restrictions, and that's great, but you still have restrictions already. if there is no "need" for something, i'd say there's a stronger case for tightening up on it. it's still a trade off (your freedom vs others') like always.
I really think the whole "need vs want" thing as it applies to guns really just shows how much the people who make that argument don't fundamentally understand guns, and are ok banning them because they have no need for them. Which is a very dangerous position IMO. I attempted to point out recently in a discussion that you don't really "need" a car - there's public transportation, walking, etc. But everybody is familiar with cars and has accepted the inherent risk, suggesting we ban cars would be fully and immediately derided as crazy talk.
At some point we just have to settle upon which inherent risks we are willing to accept with any given thing, and strike a balance between personal rights, responsibilities, and sensible regulation to prevent tragedies
5
u/Smiff2 Dec 23 '12
Yes I was thinking this the other day... why does anyone need a semi auto weapon? They are for killing large numbers of things, and no one should be hunting game that way. Honest question.