Nope. It's most certainly not. The only people who are saying that it is are those who are trying to keep people from owning firearms. Why are they doing this? Because if they the general public that fewer and fewer people will be affected by their abominable laws, support for them might increase. To paraphrase Martin Niemöller, "First they came for the gun owners, but I did not stand up because I was not a gun owner" would be an accurate assessment of their goal.
That statement is not in poor taste. Some of the worst tragedies of the twentieth century began with the government disarming the people so that they would be unable to be resist, including but not limited to:
Third Reich (initially relaxed the Weimar Republic's laws, but then strengthened them against non-Germans in the area controlled by Germany)
Soviet Union (when taking power, Lenin immediately gave people the option of surrendering their weapons or being shot)
People's Republic of China ("Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.")
Armenian Genocide (Armenians were forced to register, then forced to surrender their weapons)
Idi Amin
Srebrenica
When the currently-in-place legislative abominations in the United Kingdom or Australia were proposed, they were justified by marginalizing the people who would be affected: "We're only banning semi-automatics, most people don't own semi-automatics," "We're only banning handguns, most people don't own handguns," and finally "We're making it incredibly hard to own any type of firearm, most people don't own firearms."
That same technique is being used in the United States. "Most people don't own assault weapons" is a common refrain (even though there's actually no such thing as an "assault weapon"). Even if it was true (it's not, the AR-15, which is often referred to as such, is the most popular style of rifle in the United States, and AK-style rifles are probably in second place), it would be absolutely meaningless as to whether or not a ban would be a good idea. However, the constant refrain that very few people own such weapons was how the 1994 law was passed.
Update:
Gallup data since people seem to think that I have to show that firearm ownership is increasing, even though this diary is only intended to explain why the increase is being denied. I have no need to show that the increase is happening, that has already been done, as I'm only showing why people are denying it.