That assumption is not remotely fair, and you basically admitted that your solution is bollocks anyway: "just keep banning implements until citizens have nothing left to kill each other with, and don't ever address why they want to kill each other in the first place... because that's hard, banning stuff is easy."
I'll put it this way: I hate football, and I hate football hooliganism even more. Should we ban football to stop football hooliganism, or should we figure out the underlying reason that football fans are so truculent?
Look, if pouring resources into mental health services, police reform, low-income communities, etc all reduce gun violence in America, without having to change any gun laws, then great. Let's get it done. Whatever it takes to prevent so many children dying needlessly.
The problem is that the solutions never seem to get implemented either. No one wants to pay higher taxes, or decrease military spending, to pay for those services.
So yes, I'd like to see:
to help decrease the violence in the United States.
The quickest win, to me, is the gun regulations. It would likely have an immediate positive effect, where the other solutions may take years, decades or generations to really improve. Very happy to be wrong on that.
I want to see the government get out of medicine and stop extorting the populace for the "public services" it offers as a facade for funding a military-industrial complex for war abroad and police abuse at home. You want the police to enforce arbitrary "regulations" which require threats of violence against peaceful people.
Again, first principles matter. I advocate for a society where people interact by mutual voluntary consent. Firearm ownership does not violate this concept. In each instance, you advocate for a nanny state imposing coercion instead. Why do you believe this to be a solution?