Two facts: (1) Strict gun control in Canada did, in fact, reduce the gun suicide rate in Canada. (2) The drop in gun suicides was not accompanied by any reduction in the overall suicide rate in Canada (jumps from tall buildings, from bridges, and from cliffs, and intentional high-speed car crashes increased - replacing one highly successful suicide method with another). Conclusion: People who want to kill will find an alternate tool even if we restrict access to their tool of choice. Similarly, gun laws leave law-abiding Americans disarmed without providing any protection from criminals intent on "gun violence".
The bottom line? No, it's not worth debating or discussing more restrictions on our rights. Criminals do not obey law. Many decent Americans do obey the same laws, even when they are obviously useless. The end result is that gun laws always do more harm than good. That's a feature if your goal is to disarm decent people, but normal Americans see that trait as a fundamental flaw in the whole "gun control" movement.
In the 90s the gun grabbers could still find duck hunters who they could put in front of a camera saying, “No one needs...”. Gun owners have come a long way. They can no longer find a cleavage pane monastic gun owners. Skeet shooters now know if they fail to stand with other gun owners they, too, will end up disarmed. Now that the dullest gun owner has had 20 years to ponder it we all know “FMCDH” is the ONLY answer to give gun grabbers no matter what firearms you chose to own.