Interestingly, I find that people with "puritanical" views and proponents of age restrictions tend to be anti-gun.
The majority may support the vague term "gun control", but what actual policy do they support?
Another problem your side has on this issue is that when you do pass laws, you often pass stupid ones out of emotion instead of logic. The AWB of course, but I always like to bring up California banning .50 cal rifles even though one had never been used in a crime in the state. "But it looks scary and why would someone need something like that?" is a dumb reason to ban something and isn't going to reduce crime. Plus people like me get to bring it up as an example for decades 
I don't understand the 10-round magazine limit some liberals propose.
If you assume criminals don't pay attention to the laws then the limit is enforced on law-abiding gun owners. Police officers have told me that 10 is 'not enough' in a home defense situation. In a place like Detroit or Chicago then what do you do if the police does not arrive for 45-60 minutes? Why the one-size fits all laws all the time that assume a rapid police response?
And people point to Las Vegas and say it smashed the 'good guy with a gun theory'. Well, no a sniper situation does not preclude the possibility of other situations where brandishing a gun may prevent someone else from death, severe injury, or abduction:
* a knife or machete rampage that kills multiple people such as in NYC, London
* an attacker at a church or other enclosed gathering location - where if all guns need to be in the car -
* an armed mugging of a group - where an unarmed person even a trained fighter(s) would not be able to protect the entire group particularly children, elderly, etc.
Of course many people should not feel like they have to carry a weapon. However each person's situation is different and it is a ultimately the individual's decision. They have to understand too that they need to be very careful with how they use their weapon given the legal and social repercussions.
