There is a very large reason why we retain (well, attempting to retain right now) the right to bear arms. Set down in the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers declared that is both a right and duty for a people to abolish or overthrow a government that no longer serves them. Logically, the only way to overthrow a government with its own military force is to have arms of your own - in the hand of the people. *opinion* Which has our modern government running scared - they are phasing out american history lessons and the right to own guns to prevent the people from keeping them from total power - by blocking both the means and knowledge of doing so.
That part aside, I do believe in logical restrictions in weapon ownership. Those who are mentally unstable, or past criminals should not have access to them, as they pose or could pose a threat to the general public. Currently, convicted criminals of serious crime are not allowed to purchace a firearm legally. They must, and do, rely on the black market for guns and ammo.
There is also a correlation that many people, including many gun-ban enthusiasts in our government, like to gloss over, or presend disputed studies to refute. This is the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rates. Chicago, which has extremely strict anti-gun laws (stricter than even my old home of New York City), has a high rate of violent crime. Places like Alaska and Arizona, which have lenient gun ownership laws (while maintaining a block on criminal ownership), have low violent crime rates. The reason is simple - when gun owners are common, people are less likely to attempt crime against others, as there is a high likelihood they will come face to face with a weapon of some sorts. In the town closest to me in PA, they banned the allowance of rifle/shotgun racks in the back window of cars (pickups mostly). Lo and behold, crime rates jumped up.
Then there are hunters. There are a fair amount of people in my area that are sstinence hunters. Telling them they can't own a rifle takes a huge portion of their diet out, that they must then shell out money to make up the difference. Money that they don’t have to spare, as they are already hunting to provide food to survive. So then comes the next argument – so they can then change to a new weapon - the bow. The bow is a much more difficult and time-consuming weapon to master enough to hunt successfully. We’re talking at least an hour or two a day, more if practice is not kept up every day. I know with even my weak 25-pound bow (not even really able to hunt with), a solid hour of practice is tiring, let alone adding that to a day’s work. Then comes the cost itself – it costs a couple hundred dollars for a decent new recurve bow. Compound bows, the general hunting bow of choice, are more expensive due to being of more complex construction. Crossbows are banned from hunting, so they’re not even a feasible choice.
We also have the collector aspect of gun ownership. There are a fair number of (albeit richer) gun owners who purchase firearms to display, not to fire. Many of these are old (some even ‘ancient’) firearms that are of considerable worth.
Finally, it’s fun. Like most sports, it’s not for everyone. But those of us that do enjoy it enjoy it very much. It is a fun, safe, and enjoyable pastime on par with every other legal pastime. It promotes comradery, friendly competition, and safe thinking.