This isn't an all or nothing issue.
This isn't a choice between "no guns" and "no regulations." It isn't a choice between "guns protect people" or "guns harm people."
Guns do both, they protect and they harm.
You cannot argue that more guns causes more or less crime. You cannot argue that less guns causes more or less crime. Why? GUNS DO NOT CAUSE CRIME. PEOPLE DO. GUNS DO NOT NEED SELF-DEFENCE. PEOPLE DO. ALL TECHNOLOGY IS AMORAL.
The state has every right to regulate guns, and put reasonable conditions upon their ownership. Those conditions should revolve around what DOES cause crime or harm (or at least indicates an unacceptable risk thereof): freely stated extremist views (sorry but if you say you think Jews should be exterminated, no gun for you, although I'm betting this would be an unpopular condition), improper training, mental illness, a previous criminal record, etc.
Individuals have every right to own a gun, and to defend themselves with guns, if necessary. That right should be balanced within the context of a democratic state, and made conditional upon certain reasonable limits, like all rights.
Those two rights, of the individual and of the state, do not conflict. Some regulation is burdensome. Some is perfectly logical. There is no one-size fits all solution for gun control, or means of self-defense.