It definitely is an attempt to disarm citizens. Whether or not the laws also save lives depends on how they're implemented.

To me, the more interesting question is whether these sorts of laws are legitimate. I think something like them can be, but it's a fine line.

In a Hoppean private law society, I suspect family members or other close relations could temporarily confiscate someone's weapons or even confine them if their behavior radically changed in a concerning way. They would be assuming the liability for those otherwise criminal acts, though, and would have to defend them to a judge, if the affected party chose to pursue damages.

What I don't think would exist is going to a judge and getting the legal system to engage in prior restraint.

I can't choose between those two because I think that bottom line, the issue is that it rests on specifics. It doesn't solve the problem that this someone is allegedly behaving dangerously, it just tries to do preemptive damage mitigation on a potential outcome, by criminalizing non-compliance. It doesn't help - especially since if I'm going to go shoot someone, I didn't care about criminalization anyway.

But... a pencil can be a weapon. So can a piece of driftwood. A branch. Heck, I once had a 3-inch, 4mm (!!!) Allen key removed from my carry-on luggage by TSA because "it is a blunt weapon." Really pissed me off because that was my diving regulator key to tune airflow. Had to buy a new one. Oh and my gold plated zippo was an explosive device according to Berlin Tegel security. Bottle of cognac is fine tho - even though we can totes classify that as a molotov cocktail component. But at least they took the lighter - oh wait... the plastic one was fine.

All this does imho is introduce ambiguity. Great for lawyers laughing all their way to the bank. Awful for everyone else.