This discussion is dominated by the conservative narrative on gun control: that it’s about taking away a right you have, granted by the Constitution. And that private guns defend us against tyranny. So let me frame the opposite view, the liberal pro-gun control argument:

1. First, gun control to a liberal is more of a public health issue than it is an issue of rights. If we didn't have multiple thousands of gun deaths in the U.S. every year, gun control would be a non-issue. Why take something away from someone for no reason? We liberals have plenty of other projects we’d rather spend our time on.
2. The public has a right to pass measures that improve the safety of all. We pass seat belt laws, speed limits, etc. You may disagree with all this but it is not unconstitutional. Communities are empowered to pass laws for the common good.
3. As such, many communities pass gun control laws. And until very recently, with the Scalia court, they were upheld constitutionally on the grounds that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted as a collective, rather than an individual, right. Specifically this means that the preamble to the 2nd Amendment is meaningful ("A well regulated militia....") and the "the right of the people" means the right of the collective people rather than individuals. More on this here:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman

This makes sense when you think about it. Were the founders really concerned about Joe's right to own a gun just because he feels like it, because he thinks they're cool? No. They were interested in making sure we could stand up to tyranny, which meant the ability to organize “well-regulated militias”. The Constitution is as uninterested in your individual right to own a gun as it is with your right to run around town naked and call it freedom of expression. In both cases the Constitution devolves to states and local authorities to produce the applicable law. It’s not that you don’t have the right. You might, depending on where you live. But it’s not because of the Constitution.

On the point that’s commonly made about protecting ourselves from federal tyranny I would repeat what many others have said. You’d need a lot more than your gun at home to protect against the U.S. arsenal of planes, armor, bombs, and nuclear weapons. But hardly anyone is clamoring for the right to own this kind of equipment. And hardly anyone is organized into a militia structure that would stand a fighting chance. Why not? This is the ultimate contradiction in the tyranny argument. Pro-gun folks like the high minded cover the tyranny argument provides but are really not that interested. What they want is to keep their guns for their own personal reasons.

They also invoke, to be fair, concerns about protecting themselves against criminals. This is a legitimate argument but it has little to do with the 2nd Amendment. The argument now is about the effectiveness of one public policy or another. It is a debate about public health which is, again, where the liberal argument finds its home. Communities have a right to pass laws for the common good. Yes, even if those laws make you do something or take something away from you. On the whole, we view this imposition on your rights as worth the lives saved. This, btw, is the calculation made in all public policy. The community as a whole is better off, after you count the wins and losses.