Assault Weapons

I'm still trying to come to firm ground on this whole gun debate. One area that I'm really struggling with is the "assault weapons" part of the discussion.

Even some "conservatives" like Ronald Reagan actively supported "assault weapons" bans, but I haven't been able to be completely sold either way from what I've seen and read to date.

Here's how I think it frames up (and I am totally open to anyone providing arguments/evidence that any of these legs isn't accurate):

• Assault weapons make it easier for a shooter to kill large numbers of people in the shortest amount of time possible as compared to their slower and lower capacity gun cousins.

• Lots of people derive a lot of joy out of owning and recreationally shooting these "assault weapons."

• The Second Amendment doesn't preclude bans on "assault weapons," as per the holding of the SCOTUS Heller case (and passively reinforced by the fact that the previous federal assault weapons ban was never shot down by the SCOTUS).

It seems it would be completely Constitutional for "assault weapons" (and I will continue using scare quotes here, as I realize there is no formal category of weapons known as "assault" weapons) to be banned, so that issue appears to be off the table.

So for me, like I outlined in my original blog post, the whole argument comes down to determining whether the benefit of these weapons in our society (the pleasure people derive from owning/shooting them, which is something that I think does deserve consideration in these kinds of issues) outweighs the cost to society (the infrequent mass shooting that results in more dead than otherwise would have resulted).

Does this sound like a good framework to work from? And if so, how would you argue/weigh the relative cost/benefits of these weapons for our society?