Since every deranged nut chooses to kill those gathered in mass in a common location... obviously the answer is to BAN mass assembly.
Yep, and we will too if the loony left has their way. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M1u0Byq5Qis&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M1u0Byq5Qis&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Perhaps you should ask the Billings of Pensacola that question. There's just one problem. They're dead. They were murdered by three armed men who entered their home from different entrances in the house. Are you aware that when the Billings were murdered, they had many small children in the house? I'm sure if you really wanted to, you could find many more examples of armed invasions conducted by multiple assailants. But you don't really want to.
Should NO weapons be banned? Certainly no one is suggesting this, and I am not suggesting banning all weapons. Just those that "overcompensate" as a defensive weapon.
Can you give an example of one city's or locale's different needs for self defense than another's? Which city, for example, would need a FULLY AUTO for defense?
You did say semi-autos should be banned. I just described to you a situation that a single shot weapon may not have sufficed. You have no prayer if multiple armed assailants are coming at you. You will need a semi-auto weapon. And you will need to be trained with it, whether it is a pistol or a rifle. Perhaps you should look at the ills of society before you ban the weapons chosen by law abiding citizens to defend themselves.