A need to own guns falls into three categories: hunt for fun, which controls herds; hunt for food; protection. No one needs high firepower, multi-round, easy re-loadable weaponry to do any of these three activities.

 No one is asking anyone to give up their guns, or their gun rights. I believe in restricting the sale of weaponry designed for armies, to armies. Call me crazy. Swat teams too. That's it. No other category needs them. 

Tanks and LAWs and jet fighters aren't sold to the general public for the same reasons. There is no loss to anyone's precious rights if we finally, at long last, take a stand in trying to reduce the national slaughter rate, by restricting that which seems to do the most damage in the quickest amount of time. Why not do this? What reason would we not ? 

People intent on committing violence can use baseball bats, tire irons, axes, crowbars, you name it, but they cannot commit mass slaughter quickly. These weapons and small guns that hold small numbers of rounds before needing re-loading, would give crowds time to scatter, thus lowering the kill and injured total. Now, who would be against that?