I should begin by confessing that I do not own any firearms. I do, however, own two target bows, and, six weeks after I picked up my first real bow, I placed 50th in the NCAA nationals (then Title IX killed Men's Archery at my college *sigh*). And when I do go to a shooting range, I do tolerably well -- shooting is shooting, after all: though the mechanics change, the mind is the same.
However, my wife just got her rifle and pistol permits from the State of New Jersey ...
Reading the arguments for gun control, I was struck by a powerful sense of déjà vu. They are very similar to the Obama economic policy, which is aimed first to belittle and then to prevent unapproved entrepreneurial activity. Your economic role is, preferably, to be an employee or client of the government; failing that, you should do non-profit work; or work for a creative or academic industry; or, if nothing else fits, work for an approved large corporation (GM, Goldman Sachs, Solyndra, etc.).
If you insist on working for yourself, following your own ideas, then you will be punished -- first by thousands upon thousands of pages of Federal regulations, then by the tax code, and, finally, if you get through those, by societal disapprobation. (See, e.g., the roles of businessmen in Hollywood movies.)
In other words, the Obama doctrine has no room for people doing their own thing in the marketplace -- only in the bedroom. The marketplace must be carefully controlled, for everyone's mutual well-being, by the government and its "Gleichschaltung" businesses.
Similarly, so must violence be controlled: Just as you have no business coming up with your own ideas for economic activity, you have no business defending yourself. If you are accosted by a violent criminal, your only approved option is to call the police. If they somehow fail to arrive in time (when seconds count, the police are only minutes away), then it is your duty to die.
Unapproved defence, like unapproved business, can only lead to societal chaos.