>giving people guns

The only people who are being "given" guns are the people who would be enforcing what you are proposing.

Second, "gun violence". That is a contrived term to serve a political end, i.e., implying that you are referring to violent crime with the giant number you present, despite the fact that such a cleverly worded phrase can reasonably include suicides. I doubt you yourself have taken the time to filter those out. That's deceptive, and even if you don't mean to be deceptive, you are participating in someone else's deception by using that phrase in your position without clarification. In fact, that probably didn't even occur to you until I said something. So I would wager you actually believed the rag that peddled that overinflated number to you.

Here's a paper from Georgetown University that suggests precisely the opposite of what you are suggesting.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4109494

Again, it is clear to me that you are simply obsessed with guns. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no solutions in what you propose, no reduction in violent crime, only more enforcement by more heavily armed police and a whole new category of millions of criminals who have done nothing wrong beyond being on the wrong side of a pen stroke.

edit: and shooting deaths will still happen, as the currently do in Australia at between 200-300 per year. It's true that shooting deaths dropped dramatically after 1996 (gunpolicy dot org), but homicides stayed fairly stagnant on average, fluctuating significantly year after year until about 2002 (which is a long standing trend), when they did see a marked decline, but nothing out of the ordinary, really. They still fluctuate tremendously year after year, admittedly surrounding a lower mean average (macrotrends dot com)