No offense, but that's a lot of words to say "no".
Your position hinges on the assertion that there is a meaningful, outcome relevant “functional difference in capability” between military flavored semi-automatic rifles and other commonly owned long guns. Such that banning one class meaningfully limits harm while leaving the rest intact. That premise is wet powder.
First, the “better tool” argument cuts both ways. Effectiveness is not an inherent property of cosmetic design or operating system. It is a function of shooter intent, competence, time, and target environment. History repeatedly shows that motivated offenders using bolt-action rifles, pump shotguns, or lever guns can and do inflict mass casualties. Rate of fire is not the limiting variable in most real world attacks. Target density and absence of resistance are (watch the unedited Christchurch shooting to see exactly what I mean). A bolt-action rifle in a static environment with unarmed victims is not meaningfully “less dangerous” in outcome than a semi-automatic rifle.
Second, people drawing a regulatory line at “military-appearing” (or military flavored as I like to say) rifles is not a capability-based distinction. It is an aesthetic and political one. Many hunting rifles:
a. fire the same bullets (if not bullets that are considerably larger with a hell of a lot more energy they hit with)
b. have equal or greater effective range
c. offer superior accuracy, and
d. can be employed with lethal efficiency in the same scenarios legislators claim to be preventing.
If the policy goal is to reduce lethality or prevent mass casualty events, then exempting traditional hunting rifles undermines the internal logic of the ban. You are not reducing access to lethal capability, you're relabeling which capabilities are socially acceptable. It's deceitful.
Third, Australia banned a bunch of firearms based on their actions. How deadly do you think a shooter would be if they had a sawed-off double barrel shotgun and pockets full of slugs or 00 buck? (or mixing them both). How fast can you reload a double barrel shotgun?
Lastly, your assurance that no one is coming for those guns rests entirely on political confidence. Once the justification for prohibition becomes “this class of firearm is too effective for civilian ownership,” there is no principled stopping point. The same logic applies cleanly to:
a. bolt-action rifles with detachable magazines,
b. high-caliber precision rifles; and
c. any long gun capable of sustained accurate fire.
That's my argument for banning
your guns. 308's capable of long range shooting (I'm hardly Dallas Alexander and I can hit a man silhouette target at 800 meters), detachable magazine I can change in seconds. Slower but sustained rate of fire. Cargo pants full of 12 ga shells for a break open or pump action shotgun that won't jam. And some pistols just for flavor.
If your hunting rifles are acceptable despite being demonstrably capable of mass harm, then banning “military-style” rifles is not about safety it's just is about optics. You're thinking your deadly firearms, capable of blowing away large animals from half a kilometer away, won't be banned next.
