A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The NRA has an interesting page on common myths about guns and gun control.
If you're confused by the usage of gun terminology by the media, then check out this glossary. It's interesting to note that Clinton's assault weapons ban didn't actually ban any assault rifles, only rifles that look like assault rifles. What it didn't do is ban rifles that are essentially identical to these 'assault rifles' but which just don't look like assault rifles. Weird, eh? Don't worry, though, these weapons are used in only about 1% of crimes. The NRA has more info on gun control as it's practiced.
Note: Before you disregard what the NRA has to say, keep in mind that many politicians and reporters are as biased as the NRA. Nothing you read will truly be objective, but the NRA tries to get it's facts from reliable sources, like the FBI and the Justice Department.
This is my thoughts on why I'm against strict gun control. This case is not based on statistics or any studies, it is a discussion which goes over points that would have to be addressed before I'd be happy with strict gun control.
I'd like to start with some assumptions and background. Hopefully, this part won't be too controversial. First, the Federal government has three basic roles: protect person and property, enforce contracts, and promote interstate commerce. I'm sure that this is not comprehensive, but is good enough for my discussion.
Well, I'm not sure where, exactly, I was going with the above. Basically, though, I don't want the Federal Government (or State Governments or any other Government) protecting me from myself. The only reason to ban something is if it represents a substantial risk to the public. The ban must also have a chance to be effective. A successful removal of all guns from private hands would decrease gun violence but would also remove the ability of many people to protect themselves, something the police can't always do for you. It would also leave the people essentially defenseless against government agents. I'm not normally paranoid and don't usually take potshots at the mailman, but I like the idea that enough people are armed that the police can't necessarily go around freely abusing their power. Most legitimate gun owners would support the police in their legitimate activities.
Anyway, back to my second point. Banning guns would not remove them from private hands. There are too many guns out there and they are too easy to make in a machine ship. If guns were banned, law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns or become criminals. Criminals would not. This would create a disparity in power and allow criminals to operate with a freer hand, something I don't want. There is a reason why burglars in the United States are much less likely to burgle an occupied home than in, say, Britain.