It doesnít matter whether youíre for or against gun control. Any proposal for gun control that doesnít specifically take the Second Amendment into account isnít realistic.
The U.S. Supreme Court held, in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. There can be restrictions on firearms, but under U.S. law it is not possible to make much of a dent in the number of firearms in the U.S. It is highly unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn its opinion in Heller within our lifetime, if ever. The prospects for amending the U.S. Constitution to change the Second Amendment is also nil. So, at best, gun control can have only a minor effect.
Gun control has become a political tool aimed more at riling up voter constituencies than real attempts to solve a problem. The NRA types are being played for fools by the Republicans. Nobody is really going to take away their guns, but scaremongering drives political contributions and votes. The Democrats (to a lesser degree on this issue) use gun control in a similar fashion. When trying to rile up their voter base with talk about gun control, they usually gloss over the fact that, under the Second Amendment, they canít really solve, or even make much a dent, in the problem.
Most Americans (including gun owners) agree on many sensible, legal gun restrictions. Reasonable and responsible politicians (oxymoron alert!) could easily adopt such restrictions, but then theyíd lose a political ploy, so it ainít gonna happen.