The reason suggest that IR, and it may go without saying, but a lot of folks are scared of things that just aren't happening and aren't part of statistical reality such as Todd's gun grabbing analogy. Are many types of automatic and semi-automatic (I shy away from the term "assault") rifle and sub-machine guns exceptionally dangerous. Of course they are, in the wrong hands.

The key phrase here is "law abiding" and therein lies the rub. None of these guns are a bad things unless they are used to do bad things. E.g. criminal behavior When used for good, they are just that, an advantage that I would hope those protecting themselves and others would have access to.

So to me the issue is less about what guns we should and shouldn't allow and more about how do we control who is allowed to own such weapons. Of course it is compounded by the fact that the more of these types of weapons that are in circulation, the easier and more likely it will be that they fall into the wrong hands. That is inevitable.

While these are great concepts to discuss, they don't necessarily bring us closer to a solution. The only ideas that pop readily to my simple and relatively uninformed mind would be improving the vetting system for gun owners across the board and providing stiffer penalties/stronger deterrents for those that would break or seek to break laws governing the ownership and use of certain classes of weapon.

I put drugs and explosives in a different category entirely. Although in each case (for the most part) they were developed with the greater good in mind, they pose unreasonable risks to society as a whole simply by existing and whether or not they are they are in the right hands or the wrong hands.