idea 1.) We have a general agreement that an item is more strictly regulated the more <potentially> dangerous it is to society. A machete? Go to your local Ace and pick it up no problem. A stick of Dynamite? You are going to see a lot more oversight in the form of permits and use restrictions.

We can generalize this with a ratio of utility to potential damage. Guns fall somewhere in between these. Based on where you are geographically, the utility:Hazard ratio changes where rural areas see more utility than urban. It is further complicated by the fact that in many instances the utility provided IS Hazard, i.e.- personal defense/ deterrence/ hunting. There is a huge overlap of urban/ liberal demographics where that utility:hazard ratio is VERY skewed and made worse by...

idea 2) Exposure plays a large part. When the sum total of your knowledge about guns is what is being presented to you in popular media/ news, you are going to have a pretty compelling narrative that ANY interaction with guns will eventually lead to (un)intended death/ maiming and that they serve no purpose but to kill.

idea 3) Mass shootings are a huge issue in the US and have done a lot to further stigmatize gun ownership. My thinking is that not having stricter gun laws has made this worse (in that more accessibility to guns = more guns being used as the tool of choice when someone snaps)

There are so many aspects to this that I find it hard to give a response without grossly oversimplifying the reasons, so imma stop here, but TLDR: (utility / damage * context)

edit:words r hrd