The Drug War didn't work out so well. It not only didn't stop the spread of drugs, it exacerbated the problem. It made it more violent.
I'm not saying that prohibition is never a useful tool. It often is. I just don't see gun regulations lessening the problem of criminal gun violence in the American context.
There are already too many guns in this country floating around, and the ones used for criminal violations are already possessed illegally. It'd be like banning cocaine when every household in the country already has a magically self-replenishing stash. Because gun rights are firmly established--before but especially after the Heller--you'll never be able to suppress either guns or ammunition to the point where either becomes sufficiently cost-prohibitive to criminals. It's not exactly cheap now anyhow. Even handguns aren't as easy to acquire on the black market as people think, let alone assault weapons. And a black man carrying an illegal gun is basically begging for life imprisonment whether or not he ever uses it to directly hurt or even threaten someone. Yet there's plenty of people running around with illegal guns, not so much because they're easy to acquire so much as because that's the culture--that's the flip side to our obsession with gun ownership, legal or otherwise. It was always that way. Most recently we mythologized it in the Western, but it's a rare area where the brutality of the fictional imagining was less than the reality. People in this country have always been shooting each other, especially the criminals. But even when they were legal we never had had problem with military-type assault weapons, with the exception of organized crime during prohibition.
(Anyhow, I'm not saying I support allowing everybody to buy assault weapons. My point is regulation should be less of an emphasis.)
We're less violent today than we were 100 years ago, but that's not because of gun regulation. It's because people naturally moved away from it, just like people are naturally moving away from smoking. Government policies coaxed the move away from smoking with public bans and taxation. Importantly, that helped shift the culture. But nobody ever once challenged an individual's right to smoke.
We can fight the gun culture and the culture of violence without having to antagonize what are entrenched and powerful political movements. Regulation isn't even the best approach, IMO.
I think gun regulation could have a very real effect on massacres. But those numbers, while tragic, are too small. It's sickening to say, but those tragedies can't sustain the political will necessary to impose stricter laws. And in any event, the prevalence of people with mental health disorders using guns is a reflection of our gun culture. I think this is one area where violence in movies and video games truly matters. But, again, the body count isn't big enough to sustain such regulation, and such content regulation raises even bigger constitutional issues.
Relatedly, guns are a big factor in suicide in this country. Stricter regulation might actually have a very real impact there, substantially reducing body count. But it might not. What's the degree to which guns are causative? I'm amenable to accepting, in light of the preliminary evidence, that it's high degree. But the sad fact of the matter is that in our culture there's little sympathy for white men committing suicide when their own hand guns. Again, I don't see the political will capable of sustaining meaningfully effective regulation. You can't substantially address the suicide issue without restricting private ownership of handguns in your own home. Assault weapons are feasible; it's no more possible to substantially restrict handguns in homes than it is reviving slavery. Mental health checks don't help very much because we're all prone to depression, and at times far removed from when the weapons are acquired.
Regarding some liberal-leaning people being irrationally afraid of guns: I don't think it's contentious that many people unaccustomed to guns are reflexively and viscerally fearful around guns and suspicious of anyone not in a position of authority carrying a gun. Just look at the responses of people in suburban coffee shops when people carry openly, or the public commentary discussing those incidents.
I get why they're fearful. They should be to some extent. But those same people will step in front of a car while staring at their iPhone while crossing the street. Sometimes they don't have the right of way. Even if they do, sometimes the car hasn't come to a complete stop. I don't know about you, but I never walk into the path of a car until it's going slow enough that I feel I could dodge it if the driver never stopped. In downtown areas with lots of pedestrians that I might have push through, that means I don't leave the curb until every car has come to a complete stop. But few people take that very reasonable precaution. (It's a tiny risk, but an extra second of standing costs me almost nothing, and it's one of the few risks you can so easily control.) While it's not per se irrational to make a different calculation, it is irrational to be more fearful of a gun in Starbucks than the car at the intersection. Both should be feared and respected, especially when you're in control of the machine. But usually you should be more fearful of the car, not the gun, especially when the car is pointed at you and the gun isn't.
The analogy is important because if you grew up in an area with lots of guns around, you don't have that reflexive fear of guns. Familiarity makes for a comfortable coexistence, and makes it easier to think more clearly about the issue. No doubt it's easier for you to think more clearly about it, no matter the conclusions you ultimately draw. People who don't understand that are too quick to judge and dismiss gun-rights proponents as irredeemably stupid or wreckless. And that fear clouds their ability to understand how people could both want a gun and also be trusted to own and use it safely. It feeds into the divisive atmosphere. I don't think guns are some inalienable right, and I don't adhere to the legal theories that have now enshrined those rights. But that lack of fear also makes it easier for me to understand the political costs of regulation, and their viability, and you and I can quickly come to terms with our fundamental disagreement. If you feared guns and thought no sane person whatsoever would want the privilege for himself, let alone for others, to carry around a weapon in public, what would it matter how effective gun regulation would be at stopping gun violence? Just ban them and move on. But that kind of unwillingness to appreciate different cultural values is how we end up with such a divisive political culture, which ultimately empowers extremists and demagogues. Yes, most people supported and still support sensible gun regulation, including most gun owners. But because substantial numbers of a certain type of left-leaning American (white, rich, urban) weren't comfortable joining forces with centrist gun owners--couldn't bring themselves to compromise their notion that there's no legitimate justification for widespread gun possession--they laid the ground work for the current situation. Their brinkmanship has resulted so far in the worst possible legal outcomes.
I can support brinkmanship and a refusal to compromise when it comes to voting rights, or when it comes to abortion and women's bodily autonomy. Those are principles I'm willing to risk everything for. But for guns right? Given all the equivocal evidence about the complex reasons and sources of gun violence? It was pointless and stupid for liberals to be and continue to be so intransigent. Political compromise sometimes means also having to compromise closely held values. And we need to learn to be able to do that more often, especially when our reasons for sticking to our guns, so to speak, are relatively weak compared to other serious issues of the day.