First of all in large areas of the country (and around the world) guns can be useful tools of survival or hobbies, including around where I live. We have shooting ranges, gun safety courses, numerous retailers that sell them, and no mass shootings either alongside a healthy and large hunting population. Guns are important here is the takeaway.
It's awfully sad what happened to Jamie Gilt and that toddler is probably going to have some serious issues to work out as they grow up, but let's be clear: she left the gun loaded in an accessible area. That was her choice and now she's paying for it.
Second of all, the problem with this article is that it's basing all of it's arguments in the rational. Guns are dangerous; yeah, we know, they're literal killing machines, that's what they're for. Guns are unnecessary; maybe where you live and we could get by without them too, but we don't want to. We LIKE the guns, that's why we spend large amounts of money on them. In Australia they made big steps in what many consider to be the right direction with a buyback program, but if that was offered here I can honestly say I wouldn't go for it. I bought my guns for a reason; I want them here.
You know a Toyota Camry would probably be much safer and much more economical and better for the environment than a Charger with a V8 engine, but the argument of safety, economy and environment completely misses the reasons I would buy the Charger; it's fun and I like it. And I feel it's an essential part of our freedom to make certain that people are allowed to choose what they WANT instead of what is necessarily the best decision FOR them.
My $0.02.