Guns are dangerous tools, but tools only. Particular jobs can only be performed using a firearm, and no other device or tool will serve the purpose. The utility of firearms is what makes bans and regulations so difficult to enforce. Like many tools, guns are potentially dangerous, particularly in the hands of untrained or malicous users.
The ability of clueless or malicious users to cause harm with a gun is not an argument for the banning of all guns; this is identical to preventing the manufacture and use of automobiles because some drivers are incompetent or drunk. The potential danger of guns is cause for a training and education program that seeks to insure that those with guns are aware of how and when to use these tools.
To allow the government to remove or even heavily regulate the ownership and use of guns is to set a dangerous precedent that is philosophically wrong. Banning firearms is equivalent to a statement that the government believes citizens are incapable of handling dangerous tools. This places the goverment in the position of a watchdog that seeks to remove personal accountability through legislation. This is not an appropriate role for government*.
Rather than ban and restrict firearms, a more philosphically sound (and enforceable) system is to allow firearms, but require a license scheme much the same as for automobiles. A citizen of the U.S. must be licensed by their state of residence to legally operate a motorized vehicle (a potentiall very dangerous tool). The exam to receive the license requires demonstration that the applicant can safely operate the vehicle, and also knows the rules of use (traffic laws, etc.). Once the license is obtained, the citizen only needs to take further exams for new types of vehicles (e.g. large trucks, motorcycles).
Extending this to firearms (or other dangerous tools, such as explosives, heavy construction equipment, power tools) is straightforward: a citizen acquires training (either through a class or personal instruction), and then takes an exam that requires demonstration of safe handling of a firearm and also knowledge of the laws applicable to the use of firearms. A license then allows a citizen to acquire, own, and use a firearm of any type. Particularly exotic firearms (perhaps heavy machine guns, for example) might require additional licensing to prove safe handling.
Such a licensing system would be easy to implement, cheap to operate, and as enforceable as driving licenses. Those who have firearms (or wish to have them) are guaranteed to be competent at safely handling such tools, and also are informed as to the appropriate situations for firearm use.
Those who claim that citizens should be denied firearms, yet permitted vehicles and similar dangerous tools are either hippocrites, or unthinking peons. If the government cannot trust the citizens of the nation with dangerous tools, the government is failing in its job.
If the citizens cannot trust other citizens with dangerous tools, the society is failing; banning dangerous tools can only prolong the fall.