The arguments used to debate any difficult topic can inherently be viewed from two vastly different viewpoints. If that were not the case, it would not be a difficult topic to resolve. To illustrate, here are a couple pros and cons of gun control.
1) The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers saw personal gun ownership as a means to protect against tyrannical rule. Since its creation and through many changes in culture, our Constitution has shown again and again the wisdom and forethought of its architects, so it is only natural to continue to rely on it for guidance and authority. But the wisdom and forethought of the architects also included a significant amount of flexibility, along with the ability to change and adapt to evolving cultural and social norms. A good idea in Colonial times might not inherently be a good idea in modern times, and by including the mechanism by which the document can be amended, the Founding Fathers planned for that kind of eventuality.
2) An armed citizenry will only cause more harm than good.
With the proliferation of any dangerous item, the possibility for accidental injury or death naturally goes up. It is true of guns, automobiles, and backyard swimming pools. But that potential risk may well be mitigated by the benefit of arming normal citizens, so that criminals might think twice before committing a crime, not knowing when or from where a gun might be pointed at them.
Whether in favor of or against gun control pros and cons of gun control statistics can be used to further either argument. It is the very definition of a grey area. Unfortunately, the greyer the area, the more black and white it can seem to zealous supporters on either side.