There is some truth in the fact that it takes a person to operate the gun for it to do harm – so does a hammer, a sword and even a nuclear weapon. This is why the saying that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun can hold water. In this argument we are relying on the good nature of humans to win the day. If that is the argument then we are going to always ramp up the weapons or to use an old term “an arms race”. This theory was deemed quite ridiculous in the 1980's on an international scale yet, it is still very much alive on the individual level.
If you have had the pleasure (sarcasm) of living in society that is fully weaponized your first task will be to do whatever you can to stay alive (fight/kill others). Next you will have to do whatever you can to gain leverage to exit the area and/or end the shooting (ceasefire agreements). Next, if you are lucky enough to stop the shooting you will seek to disarm as many people as possible (demobilize and disarm programs). These are three of the most notable steps in ending any war since the very first two people started throwing rocks at each other.
Within that scenario you will understand that you are in a state of perpetual shooting and weaponizing until you are not. The moment you turn that corner towards a successful ceasefire, the weapons are dropped/collected.
Then we have the argument that only bad guys will have guns if we do not allow good guys to have guns. There is some truth to that. Another truth is that the bad guys can never be relied upon to listen to the rules anyway. If everyone has a handgun, the bad guy will just throw grenades and car bombs. In effect we will just perpetuate an arms race in our own communities. Case in point is Daesh (ISIS). Sadly that will always be a reality because some people are just idiotic, selfish assholes.
Do we live in fear of such people? Some do live in fear and that is how we get an overly weaponized society. Should we live in fear of the idiotic, selfish asshole, NO. However, we live in a world that is far from perfect and this argument about gun control will walk the lines of moral rights and legal rights.
In such arguments we must understand that what is legal is not always peaceful. Next we have to understand that just because there are laws, it does not stop anyone from doing anything.
What does work is the collective community working together with compassion and resolve to maintain peace. We are left with the cliché that it takes a community to raise a child. The community does not wait for the shooting before something is done. Before anyone says the obvious – no this is not an easy solution. In fact it is much more difficult that having everyone own a gun – and that is the primary problem we face. Peace is too difficult. We live in a time where the quick and easy life is wanted more than the peaceful life. The irony is that too much of the quick and easy has brought many societies to destruction throughout history. It is easier to buy a gun than to care for your neighbour.
Guns are a reality. With wise ownership and good judgement, there are no problems. Unfortunately we live in a world where common sense tends to lean more towards idiocy than wisdom. There is no issue with a person who has a solid grasp of peaceful existence owning a gun. Now, if you want to give everyone a gun go live in Syria and see what life is like.