trying and failing, to find some way to control violence using firearms.
This, though, in illusory.
Laws do not prevent violence. They can only proscribe the violence available to the State as punishment for such acts.
Violence is born in the hearts and minds of men. This is where the concept of
mens rea enters into jurisprudence.
Lawmakers have only one tool for every social ill, real or imagined--laws. Laws cannot prevent, only react. Lawmakers gloss over this reality to make emotional appeals to support their causes (which may be aligned with, but are not necessarily linked to, such laws).
Gun laws, in particular, are flawed in that they presume obedience by the law abiding.
Criminals are not, by mere definition, law-abiding.
Not all criminals are
per se violent. But violence is already illegal.
"Gun laws" are not, not now, nor then about "gun violence" they are merely about control, and control of the obedient.
Creating new "gun laws" only creates
more criminals out of the formerly law-abiding.
Making the innocent guilty has a further consequence, at a certain point the lawmakers are encouraging lawlessness. This is not new it's been recognized for centuries (and equally ignored by lawmakers over the same span). There is a tipping point where, if the laws are beyond knowing, they are beyond obeying, beyond enforcement, then, there's no way a reasonable person could obey them. So, why should they bother? And not just with "gun laws" but any laws at all?
The powerful always presume that they will be obeyed. This ignores the very real reality that obedience comes from the willingness of the people to obey. No matter how totalitarian the sword of government is wielded, governance reuires the willingness of the people.