Within legal tradition are two concepts most may have only heard of in fleeting chat about why some laws are regularly violated and others are not. When one takes all other variables off the table, legal offenses we restrict and punish in this country are divided into two categories: Mala In Se and Mala Prohibita. Stick with me through the Latin, but the two terms roughly translate into "evil in itself" and "wrong because prohibited". In other words, some offenses are obviously evil, while others are not.
Those laws regulating firearms (not crimes committed with firearms, just possession and carry) fall into the latter category. Don't believe me? Let's look at laws regulating marijuana use, speed limits, seat belt laws, jay walking, etc. These laws are regularly flaunted by a large portion of our population because the majority simply does not believe those offenses are evil in and of themselves. No one is being harmed by an individual choosing to light up a joint (debatable, but that's how I see it) and absolutely no one can explain to me why seat belt laws even exist (again, no harm being done other than to the individual choosing not to use a piece of safety equipment.) Likewise, laws against the possession or carry of a firearm are regularly flaunted.
Every time California passes a new version of their perennial assault weapon's ban, manufacturers and owners of the once legal and newly illegal firearms find a way to comply (some would argue bypass) the law. When New Jersey and Chicago demand their citizens turn in bump stocks, people blow them off. When New York demands assault weapons be surrendered to the police, the people chuckled under their breaths and the estimated turn in rate was just a few percent. The PEOPLE have decided such restrictions are not intrinsically evil, and are refusing to abide by them.
Even laws on carry are not universally complied with. I have a state concealed weapon's permit, in compliance with a law I wholesale disagree with. That said, I seem to have a complete inability to notice and comprehend posted "no firearms allowed" signs on local businesses. I don't believe that business, which is open to the public, has any right to restrict my ability to exercise an unalienable right, and I'm hardly alone. Carrying a firearm in a holster, under my shirt, with no intention of actively harming anyone with it is not evil in itself, hence the law depends on the people simply not wishing to face retribution in order to guarantee compliance.
And this is why gun control has, is, and will continue to fail. There are plenty of Lefty loons in this world that would happily see all firearms melted into modern art, but they are not the majority. There are a LOT of middle ground gun owners that will comply with most of the law, but push hard enough and even they will balk at continued tightening of regulations. Then there are people like myself, die hard 2nd Amendment advocates that preach from the pulpit of "from my cold dead hands". Guess which way my opinion sways on firearms.
Gun control will fail because the laws restricting ownership and carry are Mala Prohibita, they do not seek to prevent that which is evil in itself, and the people's willingness to comply with such laws will always be limited. As the laws become more and more ridiculous, the people's opinion of that law will continue to turn until such laws are ignored, actively flaunted, and one day openly challenged. One will find it exceedingly difficult to prevent a population from doing that which they believe they have every right to do.
Ask the British if you don't believe me. - Phil Rabalais