There are many scenarios where gun ownership can be a force for good and is a necessity, most countries have some laws that control gun ownership though, to make sure it occurs responsibly. For those that live or work in rural areas guns may be an everyday fact of life, being used in controlling animal numbers, hunting for food or protecting property, guns are undoubtedly a force for good in certain situations. However just like a driving a car, fishing, fly a plane and practising law or medicine, a licence would safeguard society by making sure guns are in the hands of responsible people.
While the usual defence for liberal gun ownership laws focuses on the fact that people will still injure or kill each other even if guns are illegalised, or that guns are not the most statistically significant method of murder, there is still a problem with mass shootings in a country like the US and there is obviously somewhat of a legal void. However gun advocates are right in that calling for an outright ban on a weapon will not solve the problem of mass murder or the social problems that underline this phenomenon, more effort needs to go into appreciating the complexity here, it is not simply a case of changing gun laws, and it cannot be simply a case of an outright ban.
Banning guns in all circumstances would leave some in America, although a small minority in more difficult positions and would have a negative impact on some cultural pastimes such as hunting. The narrative on guns is complex and the control of them needs to be, they cannot be completely banned but some countries really do require greater controls, a mental health test should be a minimal requirement for example, and would be a good place for the US to start. The United States need to focus on responsible gun laws, and gun ownership should be controlled to some degree to limit gun possession to responsible owners.