Well ... yes. But ... no.

I've just completed reading a most sensible, rational screed by a "Gun Control" advocate I've ever seen in 26 years of surfing the Internet for articles on this subject.

Gun Control Is a Misfire | The American Conservative:

• Gun Control Is a Misfire
• What liberals and the NRA both get wrong.

(H/T: The Gun Feed)

The author, Marc Cooper, said in this March 21, 2016 article in The American Conservative, that he was both a Liberal and a gun owner.   He examines both the point of view of the law-abiding civilian firearms owner, and the activists who campaign to strictly regulate civilian firearms ownership.

Or "gun nuts".  vs "liberals";,
(Cooper notes that "gun nuts" is a pejorative term.)

As the word screed implies, it is a very long statement; but perhaps the term is misused here because there is nothing "tedious" about it, and it is far from a "rant".

I was interested that Cooper correctly identified exactly the parts of Liberal gun grabber approaches which are NOT working for them, as well as those gun nut approaches which are working for us gun nuts. (I can say that, because I are one.)

For the Liberals:

For liberals, the very term “gun violence” has been reified [sic ... 'refined'?  'redefined'? 'deified'?] into some sort of natural force, completely detached from any identifiable root causes other than guns themselves—as if .45 semi-automatics, Bushmaster black rifles, and high-capacity magazines exert some hypnotic gravitational pull that beckons latent maniacs to pick them up and spray innocent crowds with military-like barrages.

AND ...

Most of the underpinnings of “gun violence” reforms are based on skewed assumptions, mixed with a sometimes shocking dose of ignorance on the part of policymakers, re-enforced by a media class that cannot often tell one end of a gun from the other. The rhetoric of the movement also continues to stigmatize just about anybody who owns a gun as a knuckle-dragging supporter of fringe militias. Worse, at least from my perspective, the current gun-control strategy also plays directly into the hands of an NRA that is, in fact, more a lobbying group for the gun industry than for gun owners.

AND ...

Liberals also now recur to the scourge of “gun violence” as a convenient way to betray their own historic commitment to greater social justice. No longer do they need to tackle such daunting issues as urban decay, low wages, and poor education because they prefer to reverse cause and effect: if we could only get rid of guns… It’s become a catchall mantra for the disorder of too many urban centers and the marginalization of their inhabitants, who are the ones doing most of the dying—and most of the killing.

I've been posting articles to that exact point for decades; it's nice that someone has had the same opinion about the difference between "Gun Control" and "Violence Control", because this is a sociological issue rather than a legislative issue.

For the Gun Nuts:

Thanks to pernicious legislation sponsored by the NRA, firearms research in the United States is full of roadblocks. So nobody really knows how many guns there are in America.

Pernicious?
Cooper must have missed this December, 2015 report from the Federalist:

The Centers for Disease Control was using taxpayer money to pay for biased advocacy studies about guns and gun control.

... and later in the article, Cooper cited statistics from CDC, so the "roadblocks" must not have been quite so 'pernicious':

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, gun deaths have been in general decline for more than 20 years, down some 31 percent since 1993. Between 1993 and 2000 the tally was down a full 50 percent, even as gun sales increased. Since 2000 the gun murder rate has more or less stabilized, showing only marginal variation up or down year to year.

(Soooooo.... more guns = less crime?)

Other than those niggling little minor points of 'full disclosure', I have no serious objections to the way the opinions were presented.

It's just a matter of cherry-picking information, and I'm as guilty as the next guy of being caught doing exactly the same thing, and for exactly the same reasons:
There's a point where you don't want to undermine your talking points with petty details.

Is it silly of me to suggest that you "GO, READ THE WHOLE THING!" ?