I am in total agreement that gun control won't keep criminals from obtaining and using guns. But I do not agree that just because that statement is true, we should absolve ourselves from trying to provide positive suggestions to help alleviate the problem. To do so seems uncaring, irresponsible, and certainly paints a bad picture of gun right advocates in the public's eyes. And right now, that's exactly what they're wanting to see.
I have guns and I want to keep my guns to be able to protect myself, my family, and those I may be around if the next criminal or lunatic opens fire. But I am also willing to jump through a few more hoops if it might make our society a little safer.
That is a logical non sequitur. You state that you do not believe that gun control will stop criminals from obtaining and using guns, but that the solution to criminals obtaining and using guns is gun control. The issue is that positive suggestions should not be in the realm of gun control, because gun control is just the red herring in this case. The real issue of violent crime in general and spree violence is multi-faceted and far reaching between various aspects of society and human nature.
It is very much the opposite of uncaring and irresponsible. Not only do we care for public safety but also constitutional rights which should not be diminished in the hopes that it will appease the masses until the next inevitable incident, when they will cry for a further diminishing of those rights. However, it is irresponsible to place restrictions on a right based on an understandable but irrational emotional reaction to an incident.
If that were the response anytime a right were misused, the bill of rights would be stripped of much of its meaning to and protection of our society. Speech and religion, not only in our country but all over the world and throughout history, have been misused to incite extreme and extended violence. Yet it would be an affront to even suggest placing ever increasing restrictions on either based on incidents of their misuse.
Proponents of gun control, such as Feinstein, have explicitly stated that they would like to see all guns regulated away. The unfortunate "logic" of their way of thinking is that, guns are used in crime, crime is bad, therefor guns are bad. If there are no guns there will be less crime. It takes a huge leap to assume that less guns or restricted access to guns, would diminish crime. If we look within our own country and abroad there is simply not evidence that this is true. It might shift the means used, but not the amount of crime itself.
It does not, however, take a huge leap to see that once a constitutional right is shackled at the federal level that breaking free of that shackle is a long and arduous process. If the goal is truly public safety and saving lives, then the solutions should actually address those issues and have the potential to do more good than harm to our society.