[Glenn E. Meyer]

Since I've spent a good deal of time studying the psychological impact of weapons, here's my take.

1. I'll draw the bright line at fully auto and weapons that fire explosive rounds for argument's sake.

2. The argument revolves around priming aggression. We know that more extreme the appearance of the weapon, the more it primes negative ideation.

3. The argument also revolves around differential risk. Most self-defense situations can be handled with stuff up to and including the AR-15, Aks, etc. (Although we know there is opposition to those).

4. The risk of foreign invasion by organized armed forces is nil. Most folks don't perceive a high risk of massive organized criminal or terrorist attacks that couldn't handled with semiauto long arms by the citizen - even in North Hollywood, the issue wasn't FA but rifle rounds for the vests. Thus, arguing for FA and explosive arms for invasion or massive battles by civilians doesn't impress.

5. People fear that if such weapons get easily into private hands (yes, you can get them now but it is hard and we haven't seen it much as compared to the normal criminal guns). They will attractive to rampage killers like Cho, Columbine, etc. The carnage there would be more likely than the prevention of invasion.

6. Would the guns get to nutso hands - sure, they would. A recent study shows that while murders may be dropping - the proportion of 22 and 38 shootings is on the decline and the 9mm/380/45 shootings are on the upswing - as killers follow the covers of Guns and Ammo and other journals.

Thus, my view is that the perceived view of the enhanced danger of FA and military guns due to their appearance and attraction to nuts would next to impossible to overcome in the general public. I think one might be able to get controlled new FA with a similar system to some - but not likely.