One of the basics problems, or flaws, if you will, with our mindset and the way our society carries it out is the concept that we ought to be able to prevent violence.
And that is simply not possible until/unless we transform mankind into something we currently are not, (and historically have never been).
Boil it down, what is best, to restrict/punish people for what they might do?
Or accept the cost of what they do, and punish them for actually doing it?
Sure, it's a greyscale, with few absolute black and whites, but in general, which do you think better?
For myself, I think it better to have freedom, and pay the cost. Others think it best to restrict us all (and you can consider those restrictions "chains"), because of what a few people might do.
My issue with this idea is that despite all the restrictions, we get the violence anyway. WE are paying an ever increasing cost in our personal liberty (including what you can own, and what you can do with what you own) for the false promise of security.
Bad men and nutcases still do as they please, no matter what restrictions are placed on us, it does not stop them.
It seems like they are making it against the law to eat pasta, so my house won't burn down. And then some nutjob (possibly in a govt uniform) comes along and burns my house down. And then they tell me it happened because I still have spagetti sauce in my cupboard....or my neighbor still does...or the guy down the block grew tomatoes...etc...
Prior restraint is something adults do to protect children, until the children proove they are capable of protecting themselves. It is not something that should be applied to adults, and particularly not to free citizens. Because if it is, then we aren't.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.