The following was from an opinion piece in NJ Times: http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/opinions_civilians_have_no_rig.html Two questions about the statement above: 1. Couldn't it be said that any rifle bullets in general are more damaging than handgun bullets. (for example: isn't a .30-06 bullet more damaging than a 9mm bullet) The writer seems to attribute special military characterstics to "assault weapon" bullets over and above a normal rifle bullet. 2. Wouldn't the ability to do maximum damage to a human body be a good thing when used for self defense? The writer seems to imply that this makes it bad for self defense. It seems like this writer is misrepresenting issues about semiautomatic rifles either on purpose or due to ignorance. There are other issues in the article as well. Again, this seems like a plus for self defense (as well as hunting). But still, couldn't the same be said (or even more so) for a high powered scoped hunting rifle?