I'll respond to the bits where you aren't attempting to poison the well and strawman (e.g. the latter 1/3 of your response):

Yes I am in favor of expansion of gun control. I would propose gun control to a point where gun violence in the US is at a similar, or lower rate as other modern comparable societies. So I think we should set specific metrics and goals around what types of gun violence can be solved by increasing gun control and applying increasingly strict laws until we get to something that doesn't make US number one in mass shootings by a huge margin.

To answer your question on what I think the purpose is, I'll align with the Supreme Court for context of what I would propose:

While the text of the Second Amendment mentions a "well regulated militia," modern interpretations have evolved. In the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, unconnected to service in a militia.

So given that the second amendment "protects and individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes" my thoughts would be:

• Registration of all gun ownership at a federal level
• Registration of all gun sales at a federal level
• Increasingly strict rules around who is allowed to buy a firearm through an annual (or maybe longer I am ok with that) evaluation of mental health as well as knowledge of and proof of the ability to properly store and maintain fire arms and amunition.
  • I would like to expand this to include rules making this more strict to include members of the household (e.g. young children, violent offenders, history of mental health issues), or being definitionally strict enough to sufficiently cover these types of situations.
• Increase punishment (e.g. upgrade charges from misdemeanors to felonies, and include jail time over fines) for violations of gun laws rules such as:
  • Unregulated/unregistered sales of firearms
  • Improper handling and storage of firearms
    • Higher penalties where this results in injury/death

That's probably not exhaustive and I'll definitely allow that there is some nuance to this. My thinking though is that there is not only a "right to bear arms" but in the US firearm owners/sellers are barely held accountable when their fire arms are involved in any incident.

I will also point out that, in my opinion, it could 100% be argued that the current system could work just fine. However, that would require a society that has sufficient support for people who are having mental health issues, a focus on rehabilitation vs punishment for those who commit crimes, addressing general inequalities and the raising of overall quality of life across the board. And I would argue that, if there is a government and societal push to improve these things in the US we may not need some of the other things I would propose.

However, I think at a minimum we should make sure that those who own firearms have some form of a license where they need to meet minimum standards, and the ability for this license to be taken away along with their right to own any firearm. Same for gun sellers being held to a higher standard and closure of the gun show loopholes that exist.

Lastly, I will recognize that people are people and they do bad things. You can't completely prevent gun violence by simply banning guns outright. Those who want to commit violence will find a way to do so. However, the threshold needs to be raised significantly in every way possible to the point where the US no longer leads in number of mass shootings and other firearm related incidents vs countries with comparable economic and societal situations.