Hunting is a very legitimate sport and for many a way to feed their family. There is nothing wrong with the sport or even the sport of target shooting.
Additionally, defense from Bears really is a legitimate argument. In many bush villages in Alaska and Canada, armed citizens must escort kids to school because of Polar bears.
Unfortunately, this argument does not apply to 99% of the population.
Be that as it may, would you be supportive of some stringent requirements for gun ownership? Mandatory training on an on-going basis (say bi-annual?) Stringent storage requirements? Ammunition limits?
I just look at car ownership and the various requirements for driver licensing, safety checks, mandatory insurance, etc. and see a much more stringent system (albeit imperfect) that no responsible car owner really minds. I mean no one really complains about automobile "street legal" requirements, but, geez, take away their ability to own a semi-automatic and 1000 rounds for "self protection" and everyone gets bent.
I do agree, however, that the real problem is a cavalier attitude toward guns and human life. Even on this forum, threatening someone with a gun is considered a somewhat normal reaction to an emotional situation. "If I saw someone stealing my board, I'd...insert gun threat here"
I remember driving on the freeway outside of Detroit....never been there. Trying to read signs and merge and I cut some guy off. Totally my bad and worthy of a loud horn honk and maybe the finger. He pulled up beside me and I tried to apologize with hand gestures. First and only thing he did was lift up his pistol (not point it, just show it). I wasn't scared that he was going to shoot as that obviously wasn't his intent, but the only thing I could think was "holy crap....the first thing you think of is to threaten me with death because I cut you off? Really? That's an option that you put in your top 5 ways to get back at some one who merely pisses you off?"