Yes, the rate of fire is reduced if people are limited to hunting rifles and handguns, but the guy at Sandy Hook fired 50-100 shots, killing 26 people at the school in the 10-12 minutes it took the police to arrive. That's an average of 6.8 shots per minute and 2.3 deaths per minute.
Given that we have no idea how much of that time was spent shooting or walking or talking or whatever, it seems misguided to start making direct comparisons with that as our metric.
Also, are they banning certain handguns that might be similar to assault rifles? I'm thinking about a full-auto Glock 18 with a 33-round magazine.
Given that there's no legislation on the table nor even a skeleton of one yet, I couldn't answer that. Assuming the "full auto" Glock is indeed fully automatic (and I'm not going to pretend to be familiar with it), I would assume it's restricted for most people to own anyway without special permits.
Edit: Not to mention the various semiautomatic hunting rifles out there, like the Remington 750 and the Benelli R1. What about the Browning BAR? It's an assault rifle (says so in the name), but it's also used for hunting. Weapons are completely banned here (except with permits), so I'm merely curious why some people want their guns so badly. It's not a mentality I can relate to.
Me neither really and the little meme pictures of two guns with "They're just as deadly even though this one looks scarier, haha got you!" really just make me think "Ok, so maybe we should have neither". As I said earlier in the thread, I'd be more in favor of legislating what's allowed versus chasing the ephemeral tail of "What's an assault weapon?". It's not likely to happen (read: not ever) and much the shame for it but I think it'd be a better direction to go. Edited, Jan 21st 2013 12:37pm by Jophiel