One thing I have found quite curious about the Democratic party (and a number of liberals) is their knee-jerk reaction to gun ownership. The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has brought this issue into focus in this Presidential campaign, and it's something of a third rail for Senator Obama as it risks alienating a number of potential voters.
Part of this lies with the wording of the Second Amendment, an ambiguity that anti-gun fanatics latch onto like a lampray to a passing shark. Those who would gleefully strip any and all gun ownership rights from Americans state that the Second Amendment existed only to allow for militias for the protection of the country. Yet this is a perversion of the very edicts and beliefs of the Founding Fathers (who, while flawed and very human, had incredible foresight due to what they'd gone through to gain freedom).
The problem lies with government. Another quote from Thomas Jefferson states "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Jefferson obviously did not trust the government, even one created by those who struggled so hard for freedom, not to become corrupted by its own power. Thus he worked hard to ensure that not only would there be checks and balances within government to slow the decay into tyranny, but that there would be an external force as well; the American People itself.
The Second Amendment exists to give people the right of revolution. Thomas Jefferson himself said "Every generation needs a new revolution." These need not be violent revolutions; we are in the midst of one right now, thanks to technological advancements that have spread information and communications across the globe and into many parts of the United States. But should a tyrant arise (and with FISA, the Patriot Acts, and so many other laws of late, the ability of the American Government to descend into tyranny has never been greater), we need the ability to rebel, to rely on ourselves rather than our military (that could be suborned or blackmailed) to take back our own government.
Yes, people die through gun violence. They also die through stabbings and even people grabbing blunt objects and smacking other people with them. Removing guns from the law-abiding citizens of the country just means that those criminals who have no regard to people or property will be the ones with guns, while giving the government one less safeguard against its own tendency toward tyranny. Jefferson was also quoted saying "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Rather than gripe about the Supreme Court's ruling or to try and outlaw guns through various methods, your efforts should be focused on a far more responsible and reliable method to protect people: education. Children should be educated at an early age about gun safety, and this should be reinforced frequently. I suspect that a "gun safety" course law would not have a single opponent from those advocates who are opposed to gun control and legislation restricting firearm ownership. It would also protect our children from accidental firearm discovery by teaching them how guns work and how to ensure they do not go off.
I state this as someone who doesn't own guns but had installed in him at an early age by his father that guns are not toys and never to play with them. I treat guns as the weapons they are and am very careful when moving them or handling them. I gained this caution through proper education by my father teaching me how to respect firearms rather than to treat them as something trivial or something "cool" or the like.
The problem is not gun ownership. It is not the Second Amendment. It is educating our children to treat guns with respect and caution so that we retain our right to bear arms and prevent that which our Founding Fathers feared while bringing to an end the accidental violence that happens with guns time and time again.