To be honest, I don't have a problem with sane and law-abiding people owning whatever guns they want to own. The problem being that the vocal minority segment of the gun-rights extremists probably realize on a subconscious level that A: they're not completely sane and B: showing your eagerness to use your arsenal against whatever lawful authorities might interfere with your access to it is rather heavily implying you're not exactly "law abiding" either...so they keep screaming louder to try to sound like there's more of them than there actually are.
I just wish the gun-nuts would recognize their "armed society is a polite society" bullcrap for what it is. Just fess up and admit you want to own guns because you like guns. Recognize that while the "43 times more likely" study may have had flawed methodology, it's common sense that tells us you're far more likely to end up with a wounded/dead friend or family member than a wounded/dead home invader if you have a gun in your home. Likewise a wounded/dead would-be mugger/rapist or whatnot if you're carrying. There is no "massive cover-up" of millions upon millions of self-defense/deterrence incidents that the media isn't reporting on.
By the same token, the gun-control crowd needs to recognize that the vast majority of gun owners own these weapons without incident, and are responsible in their use, regardless of their political leanings. BOTH sides need to recognize that poverty and mental illness are what need to be addressed more so than simply the number of guns in this country, but of course solving those problems is a far more difficult (and more importantly expensive) proposition, so nobody wants to have that conversation.
I think we need a better background check system. Close the loopholes and yes, make the checks more intrusive along with information-sharing between agencies. From my understanding the legal authority to do all this is already there and was implemented in the Clinton administration, which saw a drop in gun violence, but the measures were defunded during the Bush II administration (yet another thing we can blame on him).
I think we need mandatory safety and marksmanship training for would-be gun owners (particularly of the concealed-carry variety), and by that I mean more than just a two hour class on a Saturday afternoon (I'm thinking at least 40 hours of classroom/range time, with at least biannual refreshers if not annual). I think all weapons should be registered, regardless of state or what type of weapon they are. I think the penalties for crimes involving guns could be heavily increased (to include penalties for selling a gun to someone unqualified/unauthorized to own one).
I think we need to recognize that we're not going to be able to stop gun violence in this country altogether, but the gun-rights advocates also need to realize that this is not a valid argument against taking measures to try to minimize it. As with nearly all measures designed to increase security, the goal is deterrence, and no one truly expects eradication.
Bans are pointless. There are too many guns in this country already for them to have any real effect at all. Hell, during the duration of the assault-weapons ban we still ended up with more such weapons in the country than we had at the start (even more so once the ban was lifted). We've already opened the floodgates...it won't do any good to stick our finger in the dike now.
It isn't the media, either. Yes, we glorify guns and gun violence, but if it were causing people to behave violently we'd have VASTLY higher violent crime rates than we do (which overall are actually quite low right now). Can it affect those that are already mentally ill? Certainly, but that goes back to my point above about dealing with mental illness.
Unfortunately the one other fact behind all this is that anything we do is going to cost money that nobody really wants to spend right now, and many of the measures are going to be as opposed as strongly as outright bans would, which means they won't happen anytime soon.