"Like if your kid was hit by a drunk driver and the government refusing to ban cars. Or alcohol."
Why bother banning cars or alcohol when the problem is neither cars nor alcohol, but drunk people driving cars?
Great question Snoofy! So why do you want the government to ban guns when the problem isn't guns, but criminals with guns?
Ah, but I don't want the government to ban guns... or cars, or alcohol. I want the government to regulate guns in ways that are not currently permitted with the "whitelist" approach mandated by the Second Amendment, but are permitted for cars and booze.
For example, to purchase alcohol one must legally be a certain age; to drive on public roads, one must legally be a certain age and demonstrate competency with a device that can easily and safely be used as a deadly weapon.
That sort of regulatory framework is simply not possible thanks to the (modern-day interpretation of) the Second Amendment.
And thus, the shootings will continue, especially among veterans shooting themselves.
Of course, some people see the shootings, especially black on black gang violence, as the trash taking itself out, so there are fundamental differences of opinion on what's good and what's not good when it comes to gun violence, which isn't really the case when it comes to people getting killed by drunk drivers.