>

Yes, because obviously since I acknowledge that there are some important issues at play, I believe we should do nothing. That's not fallacious at all.  
The US has a problem with violence overall. It's systemic and embedded into the very fabric of our society along with driving forced such as racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry which lean on state sanctioned violence in order to be perpetuated.  
So part of the other issue with creating widespread firearm bans is lopsided enforcement, which we have already seen happen in the US when we talk about issuance of carry permits that are determined by the police as opposed to an objective series of rules/criteria. You end up with police and their violent friends being approved for firearm ownership and minorities being unjustifiably rejected at much higher rates. It also means that the enforcement of stricter rules happens to fall in the same way, leaving vulnerable people to be made more vulnerable...and that's kind of intentional.  
But there are solutions to the violence here in the US and they're solutions many of us have been trying to work on for years. Violence always has a context, even if the claim is that violence is random. We struggle with socioeconomic disparities in this country, a biased criminal justice system, a police force which is nothing more than a large violent gang, and the worst healthcare delivery system in the world relative to what we pay into it. These are driving factors which influence violence. Remove those factors, address white supremacism and fascism in this country, and I guarantee it'll have faster and more effective results than spending the next 20-30 years trying to pass and enforce firearm bans.
Been in Japan 10 years never even seen or heard a gun outside of the internet/movies/tv. Can't have anything to do with their laws though. >

Because the laws you're talking about are several hundreds of years old. They basically prohibited peasants from owning weapons in order to prevent uprisings. Those laws were revised and rewritten dozens of times and then again post-WWII after Japan became occupied by the US in order to make sure Japan couldn't rise up against the occupying forces.  
You don't see firearms because the rate of firearm ownership, or any weapon ownership, was extremely limited from the beginning. >

Every day is a beginning. >

Except not all beginnings are the same. It's very easy to toss out fun phrases on the internet without weighing contextual and historical differences.  
Say I wrote a law in the US prohibiting the production and ownership of cricket bats and cricket accessories. Here in the US, that law would probably be easy to achieve because rh rate of ownership is low and there's not domestic industry that drives sales of cricket-related products on local and international markets.  
But let's say after succeeding in the US, I turned around and said "since it worked in the US, it's now time to ban cricket in India, the UK, and Australia." It would be much harder to implement because there is a larger established cricket fan base, the rate of ownership of cricket-related products is much higher, and they have localized markets which drive sales.  
Saying "well, every day is a beginning" doesn't mean as much because the laws would be "beginning" in completely different contexts which either support or diminish the likelihood of successful implementation.   
So back to firearms, Japan never had widespread firearm ownership in their population. They also never hard a large firearm industry which served both the Japanese and international markets. The US has all of the above: high rate of ownership and a very large industry. >

You’re right. We’re too in entrenched in this shit so we shouldn’t ever consider just doing what will fix it. 
Wait, no… that’s not right at all. The best time to get rid of the 2nd amendment was yesterday. The next best time is today.
End this shit someday by starting now.