We absolutely can become a more sensible nation without totally giving up our gun heritage, but that change will never come about by demogogues on the polar extremes of the issue tossing out their talking points and trying to outshout each other. It is going to come from us moderates who respect the positions of both sides and work to compromise and strike a balance. Unfortunately in our political climate of extremism and pokarization, no one is more hated than the moderate who seems to piss off both sides!
Actually, I don't support a complete gun ban in the US for one simple reason:
It will never happen because of the historical cultural nature of Americans.
And I do believe that responsible gun ownership could mitigate the gun violence problem since many other countries have private gun ownership but not the American gun violence rate. But the definition of responsible has got to be better than it is currently. Crap even a trigger lock might have slowed the Sandy Hook killer down long enough that the cops could have responded to his mother's home. Maybe she would have been the only death. Maybe if there had been some kind of enforceable limit on the number of rounds his mother owned, maybe if she only had a six shot handgun. Maybe if the guns were in a mandatory safe when not carried.
Most victims of gun violence know the shooter. The boogeyman of criminal home invader is less of a problem than your wound up partner/relative/neighbor. I'm not saying that the home invader doesn't exist, but is there not some acceptable compromise that will allow you to protect yourself against one without easily arming the other or both?
But I do get my back up when gun advocates tell me that it is all lies. Every else in the world is wrong but they're right and they loudly espouse only one solution: MORE GUNS, MORE AMMO, MORE LETHAL CAPACITY!