538 researcher's discovery about guns

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. Let's be precise here

A "handgun ban" means that EVERY handgun (all capacities including revolvers, single shot, semi-auto and all calibers from .22 to .50) be rounded up and confiscated by the government. An action of this magnitude is unprecedented in history. I know millions of Jews were rounded up in Europe during the holocaust and likely thousands of young male children were rounded up a few millennia ago. This is a big country in size and population. Half of all the arms in private hands on earth are here in the US (over 300,000,000). I remember about 60% of those were handguns of some type. New guns cost on average several hundred dollars. My math says that (being very conservative) $300 x 180,000,000 = $54,000,000,000. That's what would need to be paid for the government to take private property. That number would probably be small compared to what you would need to pay for law enforcement to collect the arms of those not conforming to the law.

You also mention assault rifles. I infer that you mean rifles which qualify as assault weapons. Actual assault rifles (select fire type rifles) are defined as machine guns and covered under the NFA. I believe there might be 10 - 15 million of those here and probably would be valued at at least $1,000. That would include AR-15 styles, AKs, SKS-alikes... so that number may be way low. But going with another $15,000,000,000 in compensation pushes the total two thirds of the way to $100 billion. Add the cost of enforcement (including the cost housing those who break the new laws regarding the bans in prison) and I think the number is a substantial portion of the entire federal budget.

Now add in the black market activity which is sure to arise just like the speakeasys and bathtub gin of the '30s. Don't forget the violence that will come as a result the criminal production of and traffic in firearms.

Your entire concept is jumping from the pan to fire. Every other aspect of life in the US will suffer as a result. Any politicians and parties endorsing this will become unelectable and universally hated, if not for the measures themselves then for the consequences and costs.

Consider that guns don't cause violence any more than spoons cause diabetes.

To say you're barking up the wrong tree would an understatement by orders of magnitude.
Aside from all of that, people do have the natural right to defend themselves. In the US we do have a protected right to keep and bear arms. The US leads the free world in acknowledging personal rights and respecting individuals. What you suggest would be an incredible step backward. Feel free to work for a new Constitutional Convention and a different form of government but I'm just not seeing it as anything but a waste of time, money and effort.