In highschool 10 years a go, a freshman was shot by his older brother with their father's gun which was not carefully locked away. They found it, were playing with it, and 'pretending' to shoot each other when they forgot to remove a bullet from the chamber. Like all youth deaths, this is a tragic event.
However, children die of lots of 'boring' causes. Here in Arizona, the largest 'accidental' deaths are from drownings in backyard pools. The author of 'Freakonomics', which I have not read, states that if you have both a gun and a pool, your child is 100 times more likely to die from the pool. So, in Arizona there is a huge campaign towards getting pool fences.
Other things come to mind that probably kill more children/teens than guns: alcohol/drunk driving, bad driving(in general), poisons that are not correctly closed/monitored, ect. These things should probably be closer monitored (and given greater scrutiny). As your article implies, child-deaths are often misprepresented by people who feels guns are 'unsafe'.
However, I think it is also true that there is something more psychologically more terrifying about death by a gun. They are a powerful symbol in our culture, created as much by history, movies and televisions, and by people (such as myself) who 'fear' them.
Now, reframing the debate a little, a large number of people ARE killed or maimed by guns every year. From my understanding, most of these injuries are not the result of regular law-abiding gun owners, but by people who illegally purchase or steal them. Or by morons who don't know how to use/care for them (which usually accounts for the child deaths).
On that note, shouldn't their be some group who monitors gun ownership, and make sure people know how to use them (and are not criminals, or insane)? Why not an ID-card, or gun owners license that is required to carry with you when you have a gun (like a driver's license)? Hell, I don't care if it's all taken care of by the NR
A. There must be some legal way of distinguishing honest gun owners from the rest of the yahoo's in this country.

P.S. I'm deeply curious about how a conservative would design a program to keep guns legal, but away from criminals as a pathway for finding a middle ground on this subject. But please none of that John Lott nonsense.

Everybody has their phobias. For some, guns are particularly terrifying. For me, an axe would be particularly terrifying, just the look of it. There seems to be something particularly savage about an axe-murderer or a warrior with a battle-axe. (Funny, a certain type of woman is often referred to as a "battle-axe". That always cracks me up.) But I'm not advocating government "ax-control".

Being burned up in a fire is far more terrifying than either an axe or a gun, I can assure you that. Contrary to the "social planners", we'll never live in a perfectly "child-safe" universe. As to "epidemic", like "crisis", that's just one of the media buzz-words used to whip up hysteria in favor of some fashionable "cause" or other -- much as "Jewish problem" was in the past or "homosexual agenda" is today in certain quarters. Those who use such buzz-words have an agenda of their own, and none too savory.

The word "epidemic" is used to define outbreaks of disease when the numbers reach a certain size. It has nothing to do with crime, unless crime were a symptom of disease (such as rabid people spreading the disease by biting). Ever since the CDC (under Bill Clinton) began using that word to describe "gun deaths" it's been laughably misused. And inconsistently, of course.

So I must ask, if gun deaths are an epidemic, why not fire deaths?

In that case, why not death in general?

In the 1980s, some leading advocates of the (Communist-created and Communist-controlled) "nuclear freeze" movement put together a book entitled "The Final Epidemic", detailing all the health hazards of the nuclear war which, they argued, was imminent if we didn't disarm. Fortunately, President Reagan prevented nuclear war in another way, a way far more consistent with freedom and honor. He built up our arms and brought down the Soviet Communist tyranny.

The John Birch Society had an excellent bumper-sticker: "Prevent Nuclear War -- Disarm Communist Missiles"

Alchemist: As you noted indirectly, the State already tries to ensure that gun owners are not criminals or crazy via BATFE Form 4473, which must be completed on any purchase from a firearm dealer. (Of course, convicted criminals of the prohibited sort can't buy from a dealer anyway, because NICS will catch them.)

As for knowing how to use them, all new firearms come with an instruction manual detailing safe handling practices, and any manufacturer still in business will send you a manual for a used gun on request, for free. (Or at least the major American manufacturers will; I'm not sure this is required by law, but it's very common practice.) And, of course, the NRA or local firearms groups provided copious information and training opportunities to anyone that wants them.

ID Cards and Licensing are both contrary to the Second Amendment (unless the former is shall-issue-on-demand for all citizens, at least, and even then it will quite reasonably be resisted as a prelude to a confiscation scheme), and thus Not Acceptable.

I don't know how Conservatives would try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals... except to discourage them from wanting armament by arming the law-abiding and punishing illegal uses harshly.

Conservatives, after all, don't believe in utopian states (of being) where criminals obey the law, and they should generally try to avoid make the perfect the enemy of the good.