This is how I think about alcohol. You won't find many people who would argue that we ought to give prohibition another try despite the fact that alcohol kills a LOT more people than guns do.

What it all comes down to, I believe, is that people will not surrender a specific freedom/right so long as they believe that freedom/right meets two conditions:

1. It can be is, and is, exercised responsibly by the vast majority of people, and...

2. ...the risks associated with it aren't disproportionately greater than the benefits of it.

In the case of alcohol, it's easy to argue that the freedom to drink is a freedom that most people exercise responsibly. But it's a lot harder to argue that it meets the second condition, seeing as how alcohol doesn't really offer any practical benefits beyond being a social lubricant. I think most people recognize that, so they agree to meet in the middle by supporting age restrictions, severe penalties for drinking and driving, and so forth.

When it comes to guns, it's a similar situation. Most gun owners are responsible people who pose no threat to society. But again, it would be tough to argue that gun ownership meets that second condition. So what do we do? Meet in the middle, just like on alcohol. Preserve the freedom/right to own guns, but put reasonable restrictions on who can buy/own/use them.

Those restrictions already exist, but they're obviously insufficient, and they're not enforced properly. Background checks don't apply to private sales, but they should. Red flag laws can be useful, but only 19 states have them. If I were a politician, those are the sorts of measures I'd be focusing on right now. They're more realistic, more palatable to voters, and easier to enforce than any gun ban would be, IMHO.