Same. None of the proposed regulations, if in place, would have stopped any of the mass shootings that have occurred during Obama's presidency. Almost every mass shooter either obtained the guns used illegally (stolen, bought by a patsy or via black market dealers) or they passed the background checks and bought them from licensed gun dealers.
Humans are squishy, delicate creatures that are easily injured, maimed and killed. Even if we completely banned guns we've already seen that someone with a propensity for violence can cause as much death and carnage with pressure cookers (Mumbai, Boston), vehicles, fire, blades, bows, blunt objects, poison, and numerous other terroristic means.
Regulating guns won't work any better than regulating drugs, alcohol or tobacco (all of which each kill far more people every year than firearms) has worked. And as we've seen time and time again, increased regulation and prohibition only incentivises black markets and the violence and other criminal activity they icite.
The only solution to preventable violence, gun based or otherwise, is social change. People have to be convinced that violence isn't a conducive way to get (in)famous, promote a point of view or settle grievances or concerns while those with mental health issues that increase one's propensity to commit violence need to be identified and treated before they become violent. We also have to continue to address discrimination, poverty and other social ills that cause people to become disconnected from society.
But of course, focusing on a single tool that many people irrationally fear which can be addressed with the sweep of a pen by single person is far easier to implement and generates far more immediate political (and monetary) capital than something as complex and comprehensive as sweeping social change which is why politicians continue to focus on it rather than a real solution.
—————