I'm a idealist/realist about this.

First of all, leave the 2nd Amendment out of the discussion because it can be interpreted either way, as granting gun ownership only to members of a state's "well-regulated militia" or to the general public. We can argue that till Doomsday and never resolve it.

Do I believe that a gun-free society - IF it could be achieved - would have less people killed as a result of crime? Well, obviously so because guns are far more efficient at killing people than other personal weapons. The nut at Virginia Tech for example would not have been able to kill near that many people without guns. That's the "idealist" part of my view - but notice I said if it could be achieved - which it can't, so on to the "realist".

Accepting that guns are going to be in society, the next step is to ensure as much as is reasonably possible that people who possess guns are stable, responsible individuals who have been trained to handle a weapon. I support CCW with the same caveat although in reality, at some point there will be tragic accidents. For example, responding officers will someday shoot a good samaritan who has drawn their licensed weapon. It's unavoidable.

The assault weapon question is a good example of where things get murky. There are many people who can responsibly handle such weapons and could blast the living s*** out of practice targets to their heart's desire for all I care. But many people wonder why John Q. Public needs a weapon designed and intended for military use against enemy combatants (i.e. human targets). And you know what? He doesn't need it, he wants it. So how do you balance that want vs. the potential for those intending harm to obtain such weapons? That's a legitimate question.

And here's one for you gun enthusiasts - what about items like so-called flechette shotgun rounds that fire darts? One website says they're to "take out snipers hiding in thick brush or trees" and another advertisement says they're designed for "maximum trauma effect". Snipers in the trees, now there's a scenario we can all expect to encounter.

IMO this is an example where even real gun lovers should draw the line. There's no question such rounds should be illegal. Make a case for them if you can, I'd be interested in contrasting views. (BTW, "contrasting view" does not mean calling those who disagree with you America-hating, Jane Fonda-hugging pinko hippie commie Al-Qaeda Bin Laden-lovers. It means making logical statements explaining why anyone would ever have a legitimate use for such ammunition.)

As a whole, it's a complex issue, but depending on the agenda they subscribe to, people see it in black-and-white, absolute terms. That's the big challenge. What's needed is reasonable discussion and reasonable compromise.