I gave a ridiculous example that was made to make the point that probability of misuse is a factor in deciding on gun control. If society was composed solely of Mother Teresa people then we'd probably be relaxed with tanks being available. If society were composed of bin Laden people then I think we'd realise that tanks would have to be taken away from everyone but the military. So, the probability of misuse of weapons is a consideration in the debate. From there it requires a bit more thought. How strong is the probability of misuse? Can the effects of misuse be ameliorated by restricting the type of firearms lawfully available?
I agree 100%. so it seems to me what we've established is that it is people that are dangerous, not guns. Yet we are trying to pass laws that are all about guns and have nothing to do with people. Does that really make any sense?