For as long as I can remember the issue has been called "gun control." However, I think that this framing of the issue is not helpful to achieving our goal of protecting the public from the use of guns.
The use of the word "control" carries with it the idea that the state is placing limits on citizens in the United States. Therefore, this frame allows the NRA and other pro gun groups to focus on the rights of the individual. It allows them to use "gun control" as an example where the state is depriving citizens of certain rights, particularly when they are able to tie these rights to one of the amendments to the constitution. Using the term "gun control" forces us to argue on the NRA's turf, which is not where we should be.
Instead, I think that we need a new frame of the issue. We need to take the focus away from whether the individual gun owner is the one being deprived of his or her rights. Instead, we need to keep the focus on the individual citizen who is being deprived of his or her right to safety when faced with someone with a gun. The person with the gun has the power to deprive another citizen of the most fundamental of all rights--the right to live, and for this reason, it is certainly reasonable for us as a society to place limits on who can own guns and where they can be carried.
The recent case of Trayvon Martin is a good illustration for my point. Trayvon Martin was deprived of his life when he was confronted by a wanna be cop with a gun. Trayvon Martin (and others) certainly should have the right to walk down a public street after patronizing a local store without fear of death or bodily harm.
George Zimmerman (and others like him) are a danger to society when they are allowed to walk down public streets carrying guns. We should therefore protect the public from the George Zimmermans of the world by putting into effect laws that say that no one but a police officer should be allowed to carry a gun on a public street.
I am certain that if we did have such a law in effect, Trayvon Martin would be alive today. Does anyone really think that George Zimmerman would have confronted Trayvon Martin if he was not carrying a gun for his claimed "personal protection". If Zimmerman really did believe that Trayvon Martin was a threat, he certainly wouldn't have placed himself at risk by confronting Martin if he had no means to defend himself. Instead, Zimmerman would have waited for the police to arrive. Once there, a trained police officer would have been able to ascertain that Trayvon Martin was not a threat or engaging in illegal activity and Trayvon would have continued along his way.