I guess that given the choice between protecting your constitutional rights or fellow citizens desire to not be randomly killed that each side as made a choose however are there are two problems, secondly both sides are right. Firstly, both sides are also wrong.
* Pro-gun is correct to protect all citizens constitutional rights because erosion of a single right could easily cascade to removal of some or all rights. Trying to remove gun crime from society without removing a citizens right to bear arms is impossible when Anti-gun ignore the unintended consquences of their arguments. (Refer to Anti-gun is wrong).
* Pro-gun is wrong to assume the USA is a despotic hell-hole where fully automatic weapons are required for protection in a civilised society. Other similarly well armed nations control weapons, outlaw fully automatic weapons are have a level of gun crime several orders of magnitude less that the USA. (Refer to Anti-gun is correct).
* Anti-gun is correct to desire the same level of safety from gun death as other well armed countries (such as Canada, Switzerland and Australia) because protections demanded by pro-gun are unnecessary. The likihood of being killed by a stolen weapon is far, far more likely than the USA will (1) turn into a hellish, totolertarian fascist state overnight. (Refer to Pro-gun is wrong).
* Anti-gun is wrong when they fail to consider the unintended consquences of their attempts to limit the 4th amendment (for the reasons which pro-gun is right).
Two sets of interdependant logic creates two examples of circular logic (it's very difficult to break one circular logic cycle, this problem has two sets circular logic). I don't know which side will win however the outcomes for anti-gun failing are far, far more likely to be horrible than if pro-gun is wrong.