People suggesting we scrutinize the dangers of swimming pools or automobiles the same way we scrutinize firearms are simply being dishonest or deceptive. Most firearms are purposely designed to kill or maim other people. Arguing you need firearms to protect yourselves from others with firearms simply perpetuates a feedback loop, because the more that people demand unfettered access to them, the easier it is for people with bad intentions to obtain them.
The argument over gun control is kind of like the same sex marriage argument in the 90's. Progressive types believed in it, but were too cowardly to come out and say it because it was too bold of a position then. Well let me come out and say it. Gun violence, and particularly these mass shooting events, are a uniquely American problem among developed nations, and is borne almost entirely out of the easy availability of guns in this country. The way guns have been so thoroughly woven into the cultural fabric of this country can best be described as a cultural defect. The societal costs of having them so accessible grossly outweighs any benefit, and therefore the long term goal should be to almost entirely eliminate private gun ownership in this country. I'm sure many of you are just aghast at such a crazy statement, but please take a moment and articulate WHY it is so crazy? Would you argue that the homicide rate, particularly these mass homicide events, would continue unabated in the absence of guns? Are you just afraid of the transition period to a gun free society, when roving gangs of armed bandits would be running through your neighborhood to kill you? Do you love going to the shooting range so much that you just don't give a damn about all the gun violence? Before you try to get off easy and just label me a commie without addressing my points, please explain why this is so crazy.
And for the record, I own 5 guns. I wouldn't feel like less of a man if they suddenly disappeared
A gun is the personification of my right to self defense, and I want to live in a society that respects that right. Some people believe this fallacy that guns are just for defending against other guns, like other weapons aren't just as deadly. If someone threatens me with a knife, bat, pipe or even fists, I want a gun. If you think that's outlandish, come on over and let me slam your head against a concrete wall a few times. To say I should be forced to defend myself hand-to-hand, with some UK-style "proportional force" is absurd. And yes, I know the odds of my being attacked are low. But it has almost happened twice in my life, it's happened to people I know who have defended themselves. The odds are not negligible, and statistics and 911 aren't going to save me if I win that particular lottery.
In fact, the non-partisan National Crime Victimization Survey estimates about 100,000 self defensive gun uses per year. This is by far the most conservative number and is actively cited by gun control lobbyists. The NRA endorsed numbers (which even I don't believe) place the number of defensive gun uses in the millions. Keep in mind that we're talking everything from displaying a gun defensively to a defensive shooting.
By contrast, there are about 8500 - 11000 gun homicides per year depending on who's numbers you reference (FBI vs CDC). Looking at the respective numbers, I'd says guns are doing much more good than harm even with conservative estimates.
I'd also like to point out that gun crime is highly localized to impoverished populations. Meanwhile middle-class neighborhoods with insanely high levels of gun ownership, like Kennesaw Georgia (where owning a gun is a legal mandate), boast some of the lowest crime rates in the nation. The guns are not the issue, and eliminating all 300,000,000+ from the US, even if it were possible, will not address the problem and will simply deny the responsible majority their natural right to self defense.