Having people about their lawful occasions get shot is intolerable.
We're doing a poor job of dealing with it. (I mean Canada. The US is actively not dealing with it.)
Right now, in Canada, "gun control" is understood to mean "this thing makes the RCMP nervous and they don't want you to have it".
That's a terrible basis for policy.
Right now, in the US, "gun control" is understood to mean "they're trying to abolish white supremacy and we're going to murder them if they try".
That's a terrible basis for policy, too, and the Canadian version is only just sorta a layer over the US version for Canadian purposes anyway. (Look at the response to the long gun registry; "how dare you say I'm bad?" as a wedge issue to mainstream white supremacy, and the wedge issue response worked, politically.)
The general case of the terrible basis for policy is "it's OK to murder people who upset you". It's an essential component of white supremacy. (Look at how killing people with a car is viewed. Guess where that set of "it's OK, mostly" beliefs leaked in from?) (The general cultural drift as the money gets more and more nervous about experiencing consequences is "only cops are white". That's highly suboptimal.)
"I should be able to murder people who upset me" is a belief. You cannot fix a belief with legislation, and you surely cannot fix a belief quickly; changing beliefs is a long-term project.
The correspondingly unhelpful belief that somehow you can suppress firearms comes down to failing to notice that enough policing to suppress firearms ownership is inherently oppressive; structurally, it risks a recapitulation of drug policy as a mechanism of oppression. (If we're finally having a collective rush of sense to the head about drug policy, the systems that exist to enact the current policies want to keep existing; they're going to look for another basis of oppression because oppression is profitable.)
What can you do?
Find a competing belief and "give it salt"; figure out what your measurable objective is, and pursue it; remember that rights isn't a stable construction, and obligations can be, if done with care.
Making it less abstract:
The competing belief is safety; modern sport shooting cultures are really big on safety practices. There's a lot of people with self-image invested in being competent with firearms where competent includes being safe.
The measurable objective has three parts; people aren't getting shot, the police have less power, and the means of achieving this has a broad social consensus supporting it.
Any gun is an expensive wall hanging without ammunition. The point is not "you can't own that", the point needs to be "you can't have sole control of that"; most especially, you can't have sole control of ammunition and a gun.
When should an individual have control of both the gun and the ammunition? When they're on a range; when they're hunting; when they're sufficiently rural they might have to do their own animal control. (Indigenous persons are presumably subject to their band or nation's policies.) "Hunting" and "rural" involve small amounts of ammunition.
There's a gun club. Gun club members have collective civil responsibility for each other's use of firearms, whenever and wherever. You can buy ammunition through a gun club or through the ministry that issues hunting licences. If you have ammunition in your home, that's limited in amount and applicability (for what you have in your home and only for what you have in your home). If it's in your home, it's a long arm, and it's not self-loading.
At the gun club, nothing is in sole control until you're on the range. But you can own anything; if you are sufficiently in to turning money into noise that you want to own an M2 Browning HMG, you can do that. You just have to go through the club armorer to get the thing out of storage and you have to go through the club check in procedure to get on the premises and you have to go through a your-key-and-two-other-officers-of-the-club process to obtain ammunition. (It can be your ammunition; you just can't have sole control of it.)
Transportation to and from ranges is between gun clubs; it's done by the gun clubs, it involves some kind of bonded courier, and individuals aren't involved.
Transportation for hunting involves separate transportation of arms and ammunition; never the same vehicle. (You're not going hunting alone, are you?)
Transportation on purchase to your rural abode is by the same kind of delivery courier who would deliver to the gun club for both arms and ammunition.
All of this is logistics. It's commercial regulations; there are commercial regulations for the transport of chemicals that are all of mutagenic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, corrosive, explosive, and hypergolic. Commercial regulations can handle the logistics part just fine.
So the folks into shooting sports get something they want -- unrestricted small arms ownership -- in return for undertaking a collective obligation of safety. They're already into safety. That's the salt and the obligation. It also turns firearms regulation into a matter of civil regulation in which the police aren't involved; expensive, but not a lethal risk.
The police get something they want -- an expectation that no one is carrying -- but they aren't responsible for firearms regulation; they're subject to it, and it's the same rules as the general population. (Making the police a special armed caste is intolerable to democracy.) No armed police reduces the number of people getting shot, too. (You wind up with a judicially-controlled military branch to do armed response on those occasions this might be required, and they are intensely not police. They exist to deal with your rebellion against the Queen's peace. They're embedded in a budget that doesn't want to spend on them, which is important.)
If you're unable to convince a gun club they're safe with you on the range, you just can't have a firearm at all. That's your obligation if you want to own a gun. (If you're rural, you're going to have some logistical burden about this, but that's manageable. So is the bureaucratic overhead of harmonizing all the safety standards and making sure there are safety standards.)
The core safety policy -- no sole control of a weapon and ammunition -- is what militaries the world over use. This is because it's the simplest thing that works.
Gun control would be a stupid thing to fight about, politically, when we need to be decarbonizing. But it really does look like nigh-all of the proposals are trying for control, instead of success.