Sounds like you're whining.
Simple or understandable does not mean effective or sufficient. Until you can articulate a framework or method to identify what regulations are extraneous vs. what regulations are necessary to maintain all desired functions and options, you're just whining about the explosion of regulations. Until you can articulate a method to respecify the necessary regulations into simpler, more understandable forms without loss of function or loss of choice, you cannot reduce the volume of the regulations without giving up some functions or some choices -- then you argue over who should give up their preferred choices.
Give you one example: "reducing gun violence"
The simple, understandable regulation that can "reduce gun violence" is "ban guns."
But no, you're not going to go for "banning guns." You want to write large volumes of complicated rules around "mental health (and funding thereof)," "red flag laws," "video games," "school safety (and funding thereof)," "social media monitoring," etc. -- which, after you put all of them together, may or may not work to "reduce gun violence" anyway.
You have things that you don't want to give up (e.g., guns) and are willing to advocate for generating large volumes of other rules to preserve your preferred options (e.g., more types of guns, mags, and ammos you can legally own). Others will have things and options they want to preserve and willing to go to similar lengths. More people means more of you and more of these "others." Hence the "growth industry."
