MarineGunrock is right, and the UK (and arguably some U.S. states) has shown what happens when firearms are outlawed. Gangs and other criminals become the only ones using firearms. It's the same argument against the War on Drugs, IMHO. Prohibition in the U.S. taught us volumes worth of democratic knowledge, yet we make the same mistakes ad nauseam. You can't rationalize "crazy" and you certainly can't control it without mandated asylums. The recent church shootings that were ended by a brave female security guard in Denver (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14808321/detail.html) are an example of the sad times we live in: we may have to defend ourselves with professionally trained counter-terrorist security forces in public places. Banning these weapons won't do anything to stop insane people from causing harm, just as my aunt won't stop doing meth if her dealer is arrested for cooking it. There is something to gain for these sick people, and laws won't stop that. We can only defend ourselves by proper education and applied force where it is needed. I do not own a gun, but I will acquire one to fight to protect the rights of my fellow citizens to own one, if it ever comes to that. In the end I am still in the middle for a modicum of gun control, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the basic right of self-defense. I try to follow the doctrine of my hero, Brock Samson (shameless plug http://www.videosift.com/video/Brock-Samson-Kicks-A-TON-of-Ass) and avoid using guns, opting for the more Zen-like approach of being resourceful with my surroundings.