My position is that everyone has the right of self-defense and defense of family & friends.

In Law, there is a common-sense principle that every human right includes the right to possess the MEANS needed to secure that right.

Simple example: Right of Freedom of the Press implies the right to own and operate a printing press and other means of communication. In a State in which possession of such means is illegal, the Right of Freedom of the Press is meaningless.

Guns are the ONLY PRACTICAL means by which the right of self-defense can be exercised against an attacker. A small or elderly woman simply has no other means of protection against one or more large men. Call the police? Really? Attacks take seconds, but police take minutes or even hours to arrive, assuming that the attacker will permit the victim to use her phone.

Then there is the issue of the ineffectiveness of bans in general. Alcohol was banned for a decade and the only major result was the rapid growth of organized crime. Drug prohibition is working just as badly. In short, banning guns will only create gun syndicates.

Guns are here. Furthermore, the recent development of 3-D metal printers makes banning of guns impossible in practice.

The ONLY way to use the police power of the State to reduce violent crimes, including gun crimes, is the rigorous enforcement of strong laws against violent crimes. Violent criminals seldom reform, so it is not worth the risk of EVER permitting such persons freedom. To reduce violent crime, lock violent criminals up forever.