Well, it's certainly clear that most of the people legislating "gun control" know very little about guns but are fascinated with control. -XC
It's my personal belief that gun violence is a symptom of a much bigger disease. I base this only on my own experience (anecdotal, a terrible thing to base beliefs on, I know). I live a mere 25 miles from where I grew up. Both cities have very high rates of gun ownership. The place I grew up, Rochester, MI, a wealthy suburb, has negligible crime, while my current place of residence, Detroit...well, we all know the stats. Therefore, it's incorrect to conclude that guns cause crime. Guns are correlated with crime, and they certainly make committing violent crimes easier. But areas with lots of guns are not necessarily ares with lots of violence. The thing Detroit has that Rochester doesn't is unmitigated poverty, which is itself a form of violence. We can take away every single gun in the country, and kids would still be starving. I wish lawmakers would drop their obsession with treating the symptoms and focus on the disease. The best anti-gun bill would be an effective anti-poverty bill. That I would support.
I don't mean to say that more money will solve poverty. That approach seemed to have results early, but has stagnated or even reversed of late. What we should do is to rethink how we're spending the money that is already committed. I was one of the few liberal leaning people I know who didn't laugh off Newt Gingrich's suggestion of paying school kids to clean the lunch room and help out with chores around the school. I would be all in for giving a teenager $10/hr to clean up litter in my neighborhood. I think that some way of letting kids have the experience of making a paycheck, of having their own money that they earned, will do wonders to break the cycle of poverty that gets passed through the generations.