Not only is prohibition pointless; the actual harm caused by guns is relatively low compared to other causes. More people are harmed by cars than handguns.
As someone with multiple near death experiences under my belt, I can attest to this.
I have almost been shot once (not in the US), but I've have had a little over a half dozen near misses in cars (several countries, as driver, passenger and pedestrian/cyclist) and two near drownings (not in US).
Of all possible dangers I may encounter, cars easily worry me the most.
But people need to get to places. People don't need guns for daily survival. Japan annually sees double digit gun-deaths. In the US we see triple digit accidental gun deaths.
There is still a significant number of people in the US who hunt for subsistence, or to supplement their diet. If you live in rural Alaska, you might rely on your gun for daily survival in a very real and immediate sense. Some cynics might say the same for Compton or Detroit.
If you can prove you hunt (permission from a land owner, hunting permit, tags, etc.) you should be allowed to own a couple of weapon. No semi or fully automatics, no handguns, no "assult" shotguns or what-not.
Those are not for hunting, and every hunter knows it.
Japan's Swords and Firearms laws allow for that. It's a lengthy and involved process. It's not a short process, but if you could prove that it was really necessary -such as life sustaining necessary, you could obtain a shotgun, for example.
In quite a few countries where weapons are heavily regulated, you can get a permit. The structure obviously depends on the country, but if you have a genuine reason (mostly hunting or sport) and satisfy some basic requirements (no criminal record, mentally sane, etc), getting a reasonable weapon is possible.
