I'm a weirdo. That is, I own a few guns, but I'm a liberal. (Defined by: staunchly pro-environment, staunchly pro-choice within reasonable limits, staunchly pro-gay marriage, staunchly pro-universal healthcare, staunchly pro-separation of church and state. If it were up to me, the US would sign itself over to become a territory of Denmark.)
It might be influenced by the fact that I grew up in a small, rural town. I don't hunt (I'm an ethical vegetarian), although I used to compete the biathlon when I was a late teenager.
Probably because I'm liberal (or progressive, or left-wing, or whatever your preferred label might be), I do believe that the US should effect a reasonable amount of gun control. In a sense, the US has let the cat out of the bag. The massive proliferation of guns into society will make sweeping gun-control measures very difficult to employ, or to become ultimately effective. That said, according to recorded data (source: National Center for Health Statistics), about 65% of all homicides are caused by firearms. A greater degree of "gun control" can clearly get these numbers down, and I think that this high proportion makes the issue worth discussing.
(Based on those numbers, an optimist might think that making all guns disappear overnight would reduce homicides by roughly two-thirds, although I think it's realistic to assume that many of those homicides would have been accomplished via other means were firearms unavailable. For instance, did you know that the screwdriver is the #2 stabbing implement used in the US? Neat!)
Note that about 3.4 times as many people are killed in automobile accidents annually than are killed in firearm-related homicides, so one could argue that there are bigger fish to fry, but if we regulate automobiles so carefully, why wouldn't we (in terms of common sense) do the same thing with firearms? Just because something is in a 200-year-old constitution that doesn't mean it should be a legal loophole of impunity until the end of time.
Preventing accidents is also a noble cause (and usually attempted with state/county laws), but keep in mind that accidental firearm fatalities only account for ~4% of all firearm-related deaths, nationwide. (Suicide is a big one, accounting for ~54%.) There are differences by state, but they are slight (although interesting; compare the states' firearm homicide vs. suicide proportions with how they voted for president and you'll get a r-value exceeding 0.7). While I don't have data for this, I expect that regional differences, even when geographically proximate, are massive. E.g., firearm homicides would be much greater in downtown Detroit than in the wealthy nearby suburb of Grosse Pointe. This would reflect different socioeconomic conditions and their respective crime/death trends.
(My numbers above are for fatalities only, not injuries. It would be interesting to see the whole picture, but I don't immediately have the data.)
If we had rational lawmakers, the data would be looked at very closely, and then policy would be created accordingly. (E.g., what kinds of firearms were used in the homicides, and why (size, price, etc.)? Were they registered or unregistered? Was the murderer identified/convicted, and if not, why? What socioeconomic trends are clear, and what might their root causes be? What social factors were evident (e.g., did the murderer have a criminal record?)?) Right now, however, the state of political discourse in the US is so toxic and putrid that any rational progress on this issue (as well as with abortion, in my opinion) cannot be made. Personally, I think the reason why lawmakers can't (or rather, don't) accomplish rational discussion about this and other issues is the fear that the extremists on the other side will try to establish slippery-slope issues to further their agenda. You give the other side a concession, and they try to grab for more. Thus it ends in a shouting-match stalemate, instead of both sides agreeing upon something that they each find honestly reasonable.
But I'll say it up-front (maybe just to get it off my chest): as a population (in the US, at least; perhaps not someplace like Sierra Leone or Somalia), gun owners, even gun nuts, are neither stupid nor scary. Nor are they inherently more dangerous than their counterparts. If you think they're stupid or scary, that's just a reflection of your own xenophobia. These are just people with a hobby, and in some cases, a self-image that they're trying to live up to.
In terms of numbers, you'd be more statistically astute to prejudice doctors as stupid/scary/dangerous for their ability to accidentally kill you while under their care.
