Very possible, bronko22000. But there's no reason we should let anyone else but us lay out the facts. Too often, people predicate their gun control arguments on absurd inaccuracies (no pun intended) about how certain guns work.

The fact is, there's nothing sinister about any rifle, much less a civilian sporting one. Every kind of item has some sort of person that shouldn't possess it---radicalized sympathizers with actively-violent terror organizations shouldn't have cars, deathly-allergic people shouldn't have peanuts, and people who are suicidal, criminals, and domestic abusers really shouldn't have guns.

Some want a nanny police state to make such prohibitions happen---the UK (especially the City of London) is increasingly the poster child for such an absurd disposition. But sensible people realize this is just about the least optimal way to go about it from the standpoint of effectiveness, to say nothing about protecting civil liberties. Each issue should be examined on its own, instead of being another area for copying-and-pasting a reactionary disposition.

Gun control is absurd because it has nothing to do with prevention, only dubious attempts to lessen lethality of shootings. But the fact is it takes shootings as a given, which is silly. Debates should be over who gets to procure any gun, and how we should go about enforcing that, not limiting all purchasers to only certain types of firearms.