My "health, education and safety" haven't been impacted by guns so far, and that's the case for most people.
I think you're mistaken. 30,000 people each year die of GSW, and few of them are the victim of random gun violence. 75% of domestic violence homicides are GSW, and you'd be surprised how many of those perpetrators are genuinely remorseful and shocked by their own behavior after they've sobered up and calmed down. Restricting guns won't take away domestic violence, but it will reduce the lethality of the weapon at hand in a fit of rage. Now, it's true that "most people" won't be killed by domestic violence, but I don't think that's any reason to dismiss these people.
All schools, from kindergarten to grad school, have elaborate emergency response programs specifically to deal with the threat of gun violence. In the wake of Newtown, many of them are hiring or adding armed security. True, most students will never see an on-campus shooting, but they do see the metal detectors, the prison-like security does influence their attitudes, and the costs of maintaining this security does come out of the education budget.
Public policy is about weighing the immediate cost to the individual against the diffuse benefit to society. If it were just about weight the cost to the individual against the benefit to that same individual, we'd call it "economics," and it wouldn't be nearly as hard to figure out.