There are three basic cases:
1. Crime/Self defense:
In this case, gun control makes it worse, because the criminal will not obey the law, but will be deterred by availability of guns. Also, total lack of guns disadvantages women / weaker people.
2. Social Struggle:
The gun is sometimes called an "equalizer" because it /somewhat/ ameliorates the historic "might is right" argument. If two people have a gun, they are basically equal. For physically weaker groups, guns improve
their chances (usually, from nothing to something.)
2. Argumentative or Confrontational violence:
This is where values come into play most:
If you think people are basically intelligent animals, you will (normally) be for gun control in this case, for the same reason that dogs which fight are not to be punished, just risk-managed. (Social engineering to solve social problems.)
If you think people have moral responsibility regardless of their "nature" and "nurture", you will be against
gun control in this case, and normally will be for stronger punishments. This is where "guns dont...." comes from, the point is that violence is not a social engineering problem, but a moral breakdown.
(I am against most gun control myself. Fully automatic weapons should be illegal, but they already are.)