Lets get one thing straight: guns will always be used for force. That is something that will never go away. But the reason gun rights are so important is that they provide a means of defense for the (potential) victim. After all, criminals don't care about the law. They'll still keep their guns, and buy their guns as they please. And, after all, what is to stop someone killing you with a sword, a knife or a bat? Guns aren't the only weapon, and criminals will use whatever means available to carry out their dirty work. Criminals kill because they want to, not to show the dangers of gun laws. I've said that before and it is as relevant as ever. I advocate guns for the use of defense, not force.
Indeed, there has been much compelling evidence in favor of less gun-control, in the interests of the victim. Perhaps most compelling is the fact that, if a rogue enters your house for the purpose of force, he is 80% likely to flee if you have a gun, even if he has a gun himself. Guns are used about 3-5 times more in defense than in offense. If you take away people's gun rights, you are saying that people have no right to defend your life, liberty and property. Some people need to think about the word law-breakers.
The second important reason why gun rights are so important is that the populace also needs to protect their life, liberty and property from rogue governments. After all, what George W Bush said, that the Constitution is just a piece of paper, is right. An armed populace is required to make sure the government stays within the limits of power.
Virginia Tech was not the only proudly gun-free zone where a mass-shooting happened. Once upon a time, in a gun-free mall in Colorado, an incident happened similar to the once at Virgina Tech. But, when someone has had the right to self-defense, aka a gun, was the situation ever as bad as what happened in the mall in Colorado and Virginia Tech?