I have to disagree with you on that.
We live in a society because of the benefits that living in a society convey upon us. If something hurts society as a whole it should not be tolerated. At a very high level, that's the entire purpose of the rule of law.
To give a ridiculous example that illustrates my point, if Russia decided to invade my house tomorrow I don't have a thermonuclear ability to repel their attack. I don't have land mines. I don't have RPGs, or even hand grenades. That leaves me pretty helpless against a modern military with tanks, APCs, helicopters, and fighter jets. I have to wait and hope for the national defense to save me. Society has decided that the benefit of keeping these weapons amoung the citizenry is outweighed by the disadvantages and thus they are restricted. It doesn't matter at all that I'd be helpless in my home.
The issue I have with this philosophy is it reduces us down to the lowest common denominator, and ignores, well, freedom. Do sodas have a positive impact on society? Almost certainly not. Cigarettes? Doubtful. Credit cards? Again I doubt it. Alcohol? Hell no. Speed limits over 45? I think you could make an argument against it. Advertising? Tough call there too. We could make the country WAY safer by forcing everyone to wear body cams and have cameras in their homes. Think of the crimes that would prevent/stop.
At some point people have to be responsible for how they use things. I guess it depends on the kind of society you want to live in. Absolute safety requires absolute control. Most people have some place they draw the line and say "I wouldn't want to live in a place with that much of a restriction on me" because a certain amount of freedom is enjoyable. There's the whole "he who would give up freedom for safety deserves neither" quote that somebody important supposedly said, I think there's something to that.
To me guns are a very important aspect of democratic freedom. It's power to the people. While it certainly doesn't fix everything, and has some serious downsides, it gives the people a pretty huge bargaining chip they don't get in many places. The whole "people shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be a afraid of their people" philosophy in action. Voting and protesting only works in certain societal formats, we're seeing results of countries protesting right now that have media completing ignoring the protests. Even if the media covers it, unless another country decides to step in it doesn't really matter. It's not hard for me to imagine a situation where a government mistreats its people and doesn't give a shit about signs and twitter posts.