There is one form of gun control that has been effective and stood the test of time: Taxes.
The NFA has been working for almost a hundred years.
If politicians actually wanted to restrict gun ownership (rather than garnering temporary political support via impotent temporary policies the way California does) they'd use the NFA as a template.
As long as it is impossible to get the majority of states to agree to amend the constitution, any policy that infringes on citizens rights to bear arms is temporary at best.
There are decades of precedent in US courts that makes taxes and licensing not an infringement.
I'm not a big fan of the NFA either, but its existence exposes the true nature of gun control policies in Cali or NY... To make "progressive" politicians look better during their campaigns without actually affecting their constituents gun control goals.
I personally believe reducing gun violence must start with increasing quality of life in the areas that suffer it the most (eg food, homes, healthcare, etc).
I also think it's crazy that we don't have any form of licensing system besides CCW... When that is also proven to not constitute infringement.
I understand that licensing (and taxation specifically) can be used to marginalize people, but I feel like firearms licensing that is as available as a drivers license is a pretty mild concession.
I don't carry but I got my CCW voluntarily because I believe in licensing and it's the only form available.