Gun control is really a debate about control of people with guns and not just the control of the guns itself. There are good arguments that can be made for both sides of the issue. Such as the less guns there are around the lesser gun related fatalities there’ll be. And on the other side is the argument of personal security that guns provide.
The theory that banning and/or regulating guns will reduce casualties can be backed up statistically. One of the largest gun buyback programs in Australia was implemented, from 1996 to 1997, roughly 650,000 privately held guns were collected. On average over seven years after the bill was enforced, there were declines in both suicide and homicide rates, according to studies done by Dr. Daniel Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis from Harvard university.
The anti-gun control argument is a philosophical one, the imperitive for self preservation gives one an inherent right to bear arms. In the constitution of the United States of America this philosophy is the premise behind the Second Amendment, which is part of a collective called the Bill of Rights. The conjecture is in the interpretation and whether or not the above philosophy is really what the founding fathers had intended. Going further in depth on exactly what the conjecture on the interpretation is, is perhaps a topic for a future post.
In my opinion it’s impossible to stop gun violence/fatalities no matter how much regulation you have, it can only be mitigated at best. And the notion that regulation somehow is an infringement of one’s right, is not only a conflation it is outright false.