Gun control can mean different things. One is that certain weapons should be outlawed in private hands. I think anyone but a total nut would accept that was a good idea, though there's lots of room for disagreement about what weapons should be covered.

I doubt if there are many advocates of weapons of mass destruction in private hands, and I doubt if there are all that many advocates of private possession of heavy machine guns or artillery. When it comes to handguns I'm very glad to live in a country where it's a crime to possess them, and most people here are agreed about that. But if most people in some other countries see it differently, that is their right.

The other thing gun control can mean is that there should be rules about people having to undergo training before they are allowed to have a gun licence, and disqualifications for some people - the same system, essentially, as applies with drivers. And just as you would never expect to have motorists' organisations opposing to this kind of thing for cars, I'd expect that any responsible organisation representing gun users would see things the same way, and be strongly in favour of firm gun controls of this sort.

Stuff about needing guns in case the government needs overthrowing should be recognised as irrelevant fantasies. If it ever comes to a situation of armed insurrection there is never any problem in getting hold of the required weapons, as has been demonstrated time and time again. Timothy McVeigh didn't need legally held weapons to murder those kids in Oklahoma.