Straw Men and Fire Arms.

Ultimately, any time a law is created or changed, one has to view the entire picture. One has to step back and say "What is the harm if we don't create this law?" and then say "What is the harm if we do create this law?" 

So lets say we propose to ban all private gun ownership in the US. 

What is the Harm of not creating such a law: There are, on average, about 15,000 gun related deaths a year in the US. That's 1 for every 20,000 persons living in the country. I don't have figures to say how many of those guns were acquired by the killer illegally, so lets skip that part and just say that 15,000 deaths could be prevented by banning guns. 

What is the Harm of Creating such a law: Well, thieves won't have to fear that breaking into a house or robbing a liquor store will get them a bullet in the chest. Rapists and muggers won't have to fear being shot for picking the wrong victim. Hunters won't be able to hunt. Private security won't be able to arm its people. The only people who will have guns are the Police and the Army... and Criminals. 

Even if we can assume that our government will never try to take away our other rights and that there is never going to be a time that we need fear the police and the army, banning ownership of guns is as likely to work as banning drugs has or banning alcohol did once upon a time. People will find a way, and ultimately, banning guns will make law enforcement harder, since no one will register their guns. There won't be a database of test fires and serial numbers and background checks. And American companies that make guns will go out of business because the police and army won't be buying enough weapons to keep those companies in business.

Now, before I'm accused of making a Straw Man argument against any form of Gun Control, I'm not.  I'm talking about a Universal Gun Ban, which has been suggested by many, mirroring Britain and Scotland and Japan.  I think such a ban would be a mistake.  I think it shows a remarkable and completely unwarranted trust in the goodness and honesty of those in power that the people of those nations allow such bans to exist.  

That said, I do believe in the idea that the Clear and Present Danger justification that allows some abridgment of the First Amendment can and should be applied to all other Amendments and Clauses of the Constitution. But such justification must be used very, very, very sparingly.  So yes, some weapons are clearly too dangerous for public ownership (Tanks, Rocket Launchers, Grenades, Land Mines, Missiles).  But handguns, shotguns, and rifles aren't in that category.

Still, public safety and civic responsibility requires me to say that I do believe in Registration and Background Checks and 28 day waiting periods.  I believe in requiring classes and acquiring a license to carry concealed.  I don't believe in forcing people to pay for an annual gun permit.  I don't have to pay for an annual voting permit or an annual free speech permit, and the only reason I buy into the validity of paying an annual tag fee for my motor vehicle is that I drive it on public roads.  Otherwise I'd call bullshit.

My big problem with the entire debate over gun control is that it's such an unimportant issue.  Gun Deaths account for approximately 1% of all deaths in the US, and two thirds of those are suicides.  Gun related homicides... or homicides in general, are the 15th leading cause of death... and that's not saying much.  That means if we judge the seriousness of an issue by how many deaths it causes, there are 14 more important issues to tackle than Guns.

In an ideal world, we could all live in peace and there wouldn't be any huge social issues to tackle... but it's not. The issue of Gun Control isn't nearly as important as all the other social woes we have. If I had to rate the top twenty socio-political issues of the day based upon their threat value, gun control wouldn't make the list. The fact of the matter is that homicide rates have been falling steadily for years, both in pure numbers and as a percentage of the population. My point is that we don't need changes in Gun Control laws to make society a safer place. Some changes would be nice, but they aren't needed... and there is a risk in any new regulation. By and large, I don't think criminalization works. I think education and addressing the underlying causes work far better. 
One foot note: Every time the ACLU argues against the infringement of civil liberties, it argues a Slippery Slope. I'm not bashing the ACLU. I love those guys. But with Human Rights, of which The Right to Bear Arms is one, sometimes you have to paint a worst case scenario to make your point and to make it stick. Rhetoric and Logic are friends, but they don't see eye to eye on all cases. You have to pick your means of making a point. After all, political cartoons are valid Rhetoric, but almost all of them are Reducto ad Ridiculum. And, let us be clear, every single argument that we need stronger gun control laws to stop school shootings are examples of "For the Children" arguments.

In closing, let me just say that yes, America has problems, and they need solving, and those solutions are only going to come from Americans of all walks of life working together.  But the bullshit media sensations and cause of the day crap like this doesn't help.  It hurts.  It drives wedges between factions and distracts us from serious work.  It diverts us from worrying about the larger issues, such as the underlying causes of crime.  We can't make our society great from the top down and we can't make our society stand if the foundations aren't strong.  We need to rebuild the infrastructure of our society, rebuild the middle class and lift the working class out of abject poverty before the whole damned mess falls down around our heads.