No, because people already commit heinous crimes I see no reason to rob the law abiding of an effective means of protection against those that would commit said crimes with or without a gun. It's why shootings happen at malls and schools they are "gun free" except for the shooter, they are provided with a target rich environment that will offer little to no meaningfully resistance. As a result they have a monopoly on force until the police arrive and they shoot themselves or are shot.

Criminals aren't the only things that make guns problematic. Accidents also happen, and more regularly than you'd think. Also many guns criminals use are acquired legally. It's not a valid assumption to say they'd get their hands on guns anyway just because they're criminals. Many criminals are opportunists who kill with guns just because they have guns. I mean we have criminals in the UK, but they don't get firearms.

Right you have criminals on the UK and effectively no private firearms ownership yet you still have the highest violent crime rate in Europe, and saw no significant decrease in violent crimes after banning firearms. Accidents happen with most anything and are unintentional, its why we call them accidents. The only way to remove 300+ million guns from the hands of 150+ million people would be to use government force, so it will never happen, it would also require an amendment to the US Constitution which requires a 3/4 majority vote by the states. We will have to agree to disagree, where I see a tool used far more often to protect life then take it you only see a criminal implement and no matter what either one of us says to the other perceptions won't change.