I'm confused by your characterization of democratic solutions though....
Preventing Gun Violence - Democrats
From the link:
We believe we should expand and strengthen background checks for those who want to purchase a firearm – because it shouldn’t be easier to get a gun than a driver’s license. We believe we should ensure that guns don’t fall into the hands of terrorists (whether they be domestic or foreign), domestic abusers, other violent criminals, or those who have shown signs of danger toward themselves or others. And we believe we should treat gun violence as the deadly public health crisis it is.
In addition to what they've stated, common calls are also for AR-15 bans, magazine capacity restrictions, and closing the private purchase loophole. Some have even floated the idea of punishing gun manufacturers (who aren't the ones even directly selling the guns to people, that's the FFL dealers) when someone does something bad with the product they make. Which makes about as much sense as suing Ford when someone gets a DUI in their Mustang.
For any of those things to have a noticeable impact on the numbers, there would've had to have been a registry in place. Without knowing how many there are and who has them, passing a law aimed at private sales that are being done sans background check is going to be extremely tough to enforce as police can't be everywhere at once. Short of coordinated sting efforts to try to catch someone in the act of making an unauthorized transfer, I don't know how one plans to enforce that.
Even their official platform statement indicates that it's a preventative and not prescriptive approach. Their language of "fall into the hands" highlights that, I feel. There's 300 million guns "already in the hands" of people. Now, if there were a registry "knowing who has what", there could at least be an effort to get some of those back, and if guns were recovered at the scene of a crime or when a person was arrested, there'd be some means for police to say "Okay Bill, how did George wind up with your gun in his possession when we arrested him for drug trafficking last week??"
And...
Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President
while there are are a few ateps hes taking that may fall in your category, i think on the whole there are good ideas here.
What would be a more telling argument is, who is voting down attempts to regulate guns and what are they actively doing to limit gun violence if they are adopting others' work?
Didn't florida just reject the need for concealed carry permits now?
I'm not saying they're bad ideas...although, I do feel like their grandiose claims implying that "this recent shooting wouldn't have happened if you had enacted our policies, therefore if you don't go along with what we want, that means you don't want to protect school children" are a tad overstated and can be offputting to the other side.
I think the fear is that even if those new measures were implemented, in the era of many people having the mentality of "I expect instant results", if they could pass all of those things, the first mass shooting that happens after that are going to lead to calls to take it even further on the basis of "well, got those restrictions in place like we wanted, and the problem wasn't solved in 2 months, so that must mean we need to push for even stricter rules"
Florida did do away the need for carry permits. However, I suspect the massive attention they're getting is more due to the fact that "Florida/DeSantis bashing" has become something of popular thing. For instance, it isn't really headline grabbing when states like New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and Idaho have the exact same permitless carry policy. Ohio recently passed it too, but Mike DeWine doesn't really draw the same level of ire as Ron DeSantis does from some of the left.
As someone who is a gun owner in Ohio, I still opted to renew my permit as the permitless carry doesn't grant all of the same privileges that having an actual permit does.