####, the man with one gun may be a better shot and deserve some respect, but "fear" comes from any woman with ANY gun. A friend of mine, the first time he met my parents, showed a new FN rifle to my dad, uncle and grandfather. As he was about to leave the room with the rifle my mother ask to see the rifle. Thinking she would comment that it was "pretty" or something, he handed it to her. She threw it to her shoulder (as she had done since a mere child) and commented that it "handled nice". Real shock for a couple of boys from Massachusetts!
The real issue behind "assault" rifles or any military shooting is the attitude of the man behind the rifle. We learn to shoot one round at a time until somebody decides that "spray and pray" or "where there is lead in the air, there is danger" is the best philosophy.
First, few people can shoot at another human. Targets may be okay, but not a person. Shooting a lot of rounds may cause damage, but nobody is really to blame. Snipers are a different breed, and not the norm. "Firepower" is a new term to describe what happens in war without blame for any individual. That has not really changed in the past several hundred years, in my opinion. Shooting in war has changed with technology, but not the man behind the rifle.
Second, trying to compensate for mass attacks required a different evaluation of tactics. That is what the German designers did when designing the "assault rifle" and those thereafter. "What are we really doing?" "Shooting at 300 meters and in." At multiple targets.
Today, we are trying to find a better way to have soldiers actually shoot at other people, just as we were in the Civil War. People don't change much, and very slowly.
Only my opinion.
dclark