The underlying message in your post is that we have a tendency to focus more on the symptoms of a problem rather than its causes. I totally agree. I think that’s why so many people characterize the gun control debate as a binary choice between more guns and less guns; if you think that guns are the source of the problem, then getting rid of guns is the only solution. In reality, if we identified and addressed the actual causes of gun violence, we could double the number of firearms in circulation and still not have to worry about another Parkland, Newtown or Columbine, and we could do it without further restricting or sacrificing anyone’s second amendment rights. That would be the ideal outcome from all of this.
That being said, ideal outcomes rarely come to fruition, so I do think the gun rights crowd is going to have to give a little on this issue. Gun violence restraining orders sound like they’ll probably be palatable to most conservatives, and it seems almost certain that bump stocks will be banned. I’m not so sure about expanded or universal background checks. Personally, I have absolutely no objections to them, and I do think they have a better chance of passing this time around, but I’m not banking on it just yet. I suppose we’ll see soon enough, though.
Also, it does seem that there’s a very strong correlation between domestic violence and gun violence. Given the available evidence, I think it would be totally reasonable to add any and all persons convicted of any domestic violence charge to the list of individuals who are prohibited from legally purchasing a firearm, even if that prohibition is only temporary.