See, that's just it. None of you need guns by my standard, but I have no problem with any of you having them because you aren't going to go shoot up a school full of 6-year-old children or a shopping mall. Most of the people who I don't want to have guns won't abide by the gun control laws anyway, so I don't want to take your guns away on that account. However, if Adam Lanza's mom hadn't owned two handguns, an assault rifle, and a shotgun, would it have saved a child's life? Would it have reduced the damage he was able to do? If so, I have no problem with anyone taking away all of your guns so it doesn't happen again. I'm sure you have a problem with it, and you should, but is it even relevant? Adam Lanza's mommy's weapons may have been grandfathered in (don't know, don't care), and then he still could have done the same amount of damage.
Unless you can actually get rid of all of the guns (all of them), I don't think you'll make a significant difference. Thus, gun control is an idealistic concept we all cling to in the hope of saving lives and avoiding ever again having to feel the gut-wrenching sorrow we all feel at the loss of these children. But it doesn't mean it's not an important topic, and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least consider every option we can and continue to try to make things better. It also doesn't mean we should give up our freedoms for some idealistic hope.