Your first sentence is regrettable in an otherwise informative post. There are tons of laws, and part of the problem is that many laws are just, well, stupid a

Your first sentence is regrettable in an otherwise informative post. There are tons of laws, and part of the problem is that many laws are just, well, stupid and poorly-implemented. California has some kind of review process for guns themselves, in order to go on the "Roster" from which normal people can buy them. This is a highly restricted list that excludes most new models even if they are functionally the same. It serves no useful purpose and does nothing to reduce the danger of guns in any way, it's just to interfere with lawful gun owners who want more modern models, and cause trouble for manufacturers who need to keep producing old ones. If you were a gun owner, you'd probably think that they really are out to get you, and you may question whether those who passed the law even care about bringing firearm deaths down. That makes it a lot harder to work on legislation that's actually useful. And laws that are actually useful, like those that put violent people in jail (and put them back again if they are caught with a gun after they get out) have been tried and they do work. But a lot of cities are not enforcing those laws consistently. Could more be done? Yes, I think so. But compromise is a two-way street where both sides are trying to create a better balance. As long as "compromise" always means a one-way ratchet of gun restrictions, the other side will resist it with whatever they have.