Regulating gun ownership isn't the same as banning guns, and correlation is not the same as causation. I could say "Norway has very strict laws when it comes to owning guns, yet our murder and crime rates are way lower than in the US." and that would in the same way not prove that strict gun laws means less crime.
Most of the proposed regulations that are intended to do anything signficant are defacto bans on certain types of weapons. So yes, they are gun bans in all but the literal sense.
And the bolded was my point, certain places in the United States have obtained low crime rates without gun control, there is nothing preventing other areas from achieving the same by targetting causes of the crime rather than means by which the crime manifests.
I don't live in the US, so I haven't delved too deep into the issue, I am just aware of this case here:
HJRes 40: Providing for Congressional Disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of The Rule Submitted by The Social Security Administration Relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
What It Will Do: This is the 115th Congress's third application of the Congressional Review Act, axing an Obama-era rule. That rule, phrased as a realization of the provisions of a 2007 law, essentially prohibited people who 1. receive disability payments from the Social Security Administration and 2. have been judged to need someone to handle their financial affairs because they are mentally ill or disabled from owning guns, although it also created an avenue to appeal that prohibition on a case-by-case basis.
Which, well, I can't say I agree with the decision of the Tump administration to revoke this...
However in general, I don't have anything against gun ownership, but I don't think there's anything wrong with somewhat limiting that types of guns you can get. But I also don't think gun regulations are the core of solving America's issue with violent crime.