Listen to Vox's The Weeds on gun control.

Also, here is Josh Marshall ripping that op-ed to shreds.



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-poverty-of-data-journalism-and-the-irony-of-gun-control

full of shit and Josh Marshall is an ideologue who uses the standard logical fallacies used by gun control activists. He doesn't rip shit. He has no data, no facts, no evidence. All he does is hand wave, argument by assertion, and ad hoc logical fallacies.

Public policy should always be based on facts, evidence, and data. Ideology and dogma have no place in public policy. It doesn't matter if it comes from the left or right.

Marshall assumes that just because UK and Australia doesn't have mass shootings that also means they don't have mass murders. The most "popular" means of mass murder in Australia happens to be arson. Either Marshall, or other gun control activists, seem to think that either mass murder by firearms is the only means or they frankly don't care about murder by other means. Frankly, I tend to think it is the latter.

Also, his statistics on gun ownership is inaccurate. His percentage of gun ownership is closer to New Zealand and France, but not the US or Canada.

has a history of giving money to nonscientists to activists, like Author Kellermann, who do "advocacy research" who resist and fail any kind of peer review. The National Institute for Justice, under the DoJ, has been funding studies that follow the scientific method but gun control activists don't like the results.
20K are suicides, most of the remainder are gang members killing each other (and "collateral damage&quot . After that you have accidents, self defense, and the occasional spree killer.

The problem isn't "responsible gun owners", the problem is the demand for illegal drugs (or simply not keeping them illegal), dysfunctional urban planning, wealth inequality, political corruption.

much of it is in print forms. Then much of it is simply piecing data together from various sources. Some of it is simply reading some books on evolutionary psychology.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call a FOIDless People Nation or Outlaw members "responsible gun owners".

Here are a couple of secondary sources that use said statistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
https://www.npr.org/2017/09/30/554789675/report-finds-suicides-are-even-more-common-than-gun-homicides

Here is a bonus
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/

Those are the only selling point. When you look at the objective studies by criminologists (peer-reviewed in criminology journals), not in-house publications without any peer review and not cited anywhere "studies".
1- Marshall's entire argument is based on "argument by assertion"
2- He ignores the fact that Australia had one mass shooting (using our definition) in the 30 years before and after the National Firearms Agreement and Port Author. There were 22 people killed in mass murder events before and 21 after in that 60-year span. Most of them by arson and other weapons. Crime in the UK, especially gun violence" was actually lower when there was no gun control at all.
3- He assumes that there is no gun regulations in the US. Chances are, he is completely ignorant of US gun laws (federal and state) let alone of those in Australian states (technically they have no federal gun control laws) and the UK.

She is right. Gun control, be it here or anywhere else, is entirely based on ideology and control. Marshall is full of shit. He has not seriously studied the issue his article clearly shows that.

"Libresco’s argument is based on her findings that no one of the much-discussed ‘common-sense’ reforms would alone drive a major reduction of firearms deaths. As far as it goes, that’s likely true. "

I have no idea how you equate that to "The dumb article is wrong" when Marshall himself agrees with it. Furthermore, Marshall admits that even the baseline "Common sense" gun laws that Libresco "poo-poos" are only the first steps on a path of incrementalism leading to larger ones, a sentiment that many on the Control side insists isn't true.

"All of the reforms Libresco poo-poos are necessary and important. But they are only first steps. If we think they are more than first steps or incremental, obvious regulations we’re fooling ourselves and actually undermining ourselves."


Seems to me the article you posted is a validation of most things that the RKBA folks say on a routine basis.

Those measures would reduce crime. There is absolutely no question about those facts.

Oh and this 14-year old kid who got killed in a drive-by shooting in August?
http://wgntv.com/2017/08/06/14-year-old-boy-shot-killed-on-lower-west-side/
He'd be less likely to die when America bans handguns.

And this kid too. He's dead. By a gun. Less likely to die by guns when we have an appropriate gun ban.
http://fox5sandiego.com/2013/06/04/boy-10-shot-in-scripps-ranch/

There is no evidence to support such a claim. The entire argument is based on logical fallacies like post hoc ergo propter hoc and appeal to emotion and fear mongering.

Your first example, a drive-by shooting by drug gangs. The same people who make their money from selling substances that have been banned for over a century. Heroin kills more people than guns.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/merrylands-suffers-eighth-drive-by-shooting-in-seven-days/news-story/c1aaad4ef1d906e6dce6c5054bab1660
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mohammed-shamery-21-wounded-in-merrylands-driveby-shooting-20170906-gycdal.html
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/crime-court/machine-guns-drugs-inside-the-gold-coasts-secret-gun-factory/news-story/3d71bc6812d8d9b5f5958cc1ba255049

BTW, what is an "assault weapon"? It is a legal term that means anything a politician wants it to mean. The ARs used in San Bernideno were not "assault weapons" under California law. Target pistols commonly used in the Olympics are "assault weapons" under New York law.

That is absolutely an appeal to emotion. Because I feel bad emotions when kids get killed by handguns.
Americans can have all the hunting rifles they want. We need a handgun ban.

(Also: I already cited the arguments, and the data. See above. A ban on handguns would reduce gun deaths. There is no question. See Australia. And don't cite debunked rightwing crap arguments. Australia is strong evidence.)

than killed with them.

Your pro gun talking point about guns being used to shoot other people with guns, somehow reducing shooting, is totally and ridiculously false. You should be embarrassed to parrot that NRA talking point lie.

On Australia you are also wrong. They banned guns. That reduced guns in the country. Now they have lower gun crime. FAR lower gun crime. That is a fact. See the two links I gave you above.

The nra and pro gun groups like to try to muddy the waters. But people who repeat nra talking points, I’m sorry to say, are complicit in killings like of that 10yr old above who shot himself and died. Guns for killing people (not hunting rifles) need to be banned in America. Period.

and it is a big IF, that gun bans would reduce (gun) crime would you find it an acceptable trade to see increases in non-gun crime; those victims being the people who successfully use guns in self defense?

why is it in a medical journal instead of a criminology or sociology journal?

Assuming that an effective gun ban would likely reduce gun crime, the fate those who use guns in self-defense must be addressed. Those self-defense cases will likely become crime victims.
If the number of self-defense incidents is greater that the number of gun crimes, it is logical the reduction in gun crime will be more than offset by increase in crime in other categories resulting in an overall increase in crime.
Is such an increase acceptable?

go ahead and alert me, snowflake.

I don't give a shit.

facts, evidence, and reason and detest (actually hate) fabrication, "narratives", dogma, ideology, and logical fallacies.

gun on gun crime and protection does not PROVE guns saves lives, It just proves that guns are the problem not the solution,

Did you even read the paragraph you posted?

Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

Actual defensive means shots fired. Out of self-defense uses, death is in the hundreds. Ten times that is the number wounded. No shots fired are all over the map and are often not reported to the police and certainly not in the media.
Your bolded comments are assumptions, not facts. Assumptions that may or may not be true.
BTW, all polls are based on extrapolation, the larger the sample size the smaller margin of error. Kleck polled 5000 people, five times the number of most poll samples.

and things have gotten waaaaayyyyyyyy worse.

Not sure what city you live in but Chicago now has had three years of concealed cary laws and it has not done

DICK, DIME ONE

to stop violence in my city and in fact guns crimes, gun shooting victims* have gone drastically up.

Oh and the new gun nut de jour is firing on the highway at each other at high speeds.

My fav of your post..

No shots fired are all over the map and are often not reported to the police and certainly not in the media.

The problem with Chicago is criminals and gangbangers killing each other protecting their drug profits and easy access to long banned substances like heroin, meth, etc. I fail to see what gang warfare has to do with legal and licensed concealed carry. It does have everything to do with the GINI coefficient and your city government. Your city's problems are the result of incompetent and corrupt assholes you elect, not me.

Where I live is permitless carry, and the majority of people (including liberals) own guns. Our murders was a meth head stabbing another and a POS beating his kid to death. If we get rid of fracking, we will get rid of the vices that come with the oil field industry and our murder rate will drop in half.

and then you blame "Our city government" for lax gun laws in Indiana that results in straw purchases coming into the city and profiting off of gun proliferation in our city by criminals...

Good luck with that.

BTW what state do you live in?

about your city government's mutually beneficial relationships with the drug gangs. I suggest you read it. As for "lax gun laws in Indiana", it is complete horse shit just like the logical fallacies and the card stacking and well poisoning. There is zero evidence to support the claim and the politicians, many of which are criminals themselves, are lying sacks of shit. They tell that bullshit to distract the people from the fact that Chicago politicians (well shit, the whole state) are just as sleazy and corrupt as the days of Capone.
A street pistol can be purchased for as little as fifty bucks, why would anyone risk decades of prison for such a financial loss on each gun?

Me as in "the evil gun lobby" or those Wyoming hicks your politicians blame for your gang problem. I don't blame your city government for Indiana's laws. I blame your city government for being corrupt fucks that coddle and protect the gangs from the cops for their own benefit.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-chicago-aldermen-and-corruption-kass-1215-20161214-column.html

Not that Chicago is unique
https://nypost.com/2016/02/25/pro-gun-control-politician-sent-to-prison-for-gun-trafficking/
Do I think Yee is unique? No, I don't. You know the odd thing is? I have yet to see a gun control group condemn him. The only thing I saw, IIRC it was Cease Fire, that said that it was sad to "lose an important ally".

Your gangs, politicians, your school system that doesn't give two shit about graduating kids that can't read as long as the graft is passed out, are responsible for the murder problem, not Indiana, or anyone else.

card stacking, kind of like lying by omission. The Indy Star article is an example of it.
Read the disclaimer and the time to crime.
https://www.atf.gov/docs/163564-ilatfwebsite15pdf/download

The traces are not representative, and they are traced for any reason.

IOW, the argument is bullshit.

Handgun ban.
Indiana's guns get Chicago's kids killed. If you lived in Chicago, you would know.

another one.

Handgun ban.
Indiana's guns get Chicago's kids killed. If you lived in Chicago, you would know.

...and helps enable Republican victories in purple areas.

As usual, data like you cite is pretty useless, because it's very limited.

Why is it limited? Because the NRA and gun manufacturers have lobbied Congress to restrict data. Because they are afraid of data.


And if you want to use this limited data anyway, here's a much better anecdote, which also accords with the commonsense of anyone who has carried a gun:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die

If you banned guns, the suicide rate would be the same, just more rope deaths. Also, most of the murders are criminals killing each other.
BTW, for each self-defense shooting, there are ten woundings and 10-100 "threat neutralized" with no shots fired.

You are part of the problem. I'm sorry to say it. When you die, if you have any creator, you will have to answer for keeping guns in America. Kids and adults get killed in America's cities every day.

Have you ever lived in Chicago's South Side? In DC? In Boston or Mattapan? New York? If not, how can you understand what those residents face? It's no surprise that residents of cities favor gun laws.

How are you going to collect and pay for these now banned weapons?

Once the Rs have been relegated to the minority a law can be passed mandating that the states collect the guns through local PDs and sheriff's depts. Federal financing will follow along with a tax on any new firearm purchase to help defray the cost of the collection of the banned guns and compensation to their owners. This will work well until an election where another foreign assisted fraud puts a Republican majority back in congress to defund the program and bankrupt some parts of some state governments.

Can you throw up a link or something? The only thing you've linked to are two random and unrelated news stories and an op-ed that supports everything the RKBA groups have been saying for years. I'd like to see your "data".

Weeds podcast I linked has plenty of discussion on data showing gun reductions decrease gun crime. And as I have now discussed at length, despite the nra talking points impugning Australia s experience, its absolutely clear that in Australia, they reduced guns and gun crime went down. Shocker, huh?

Hey guess what else? There’s limited data on gun deaths in the US because the NRA has lobbied congress to restrict research on gun crime.

That should be enough. The nra wants to suppress data on guns. That means they know the data would be bad for them. So we know what the data look like. QED.

Also on top of the data that is available, did I mention how many kids get killed by guns every year?

Also care to respond to my point about the NRA lobbying to restrict gun data? For that reason alone, gun bans should not need to provide data - the NRA knows it would be bad for them.

You state "Gun bans should not need to provide data" and that renders your opinion invalid in the eyes of the law or any intellectually honest dialogue. Legislation is not, and should never be, dictated by emotion or mob rule; that is the way of fascism and anarchy. I dismiss your "argument" as a matter of course as everyone should; it has no place in reasonable and civil discourse.

You said you had posted data and facts. You have done neither. If you have either of such things, I would request you to post them to back up your assertions as doing so would make your claims more valid in the eyes of readers. I'd be happy to engage in an intelligent conversation about this subject, but that requires good faith from both parties, a faith you've yet to demonstrate.

In any case, I have to go to work. Enjoy your evening.

But on top of that, an intellectually honest counter argument to me would have read and responded to the segment I quoted on why data isn't the point.

Have a good evening!

the report PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE?
Maybe you can explain why this 2013 report is never mentioned by gun control advocates?

That article provides strong evidence for the way the NRA has limited our data, and gun control advocates should cite it more.

From that article:

and refutes many of gun control's favorite talking points. Just a few selections:

And that's one of the few gun control laws that is actually unconstitutional, so would require repeal of the 2d Amendment.

the gun industry wouldn't want to get all that free government data collected for their publicity.

Gee, I wonder, why?

I wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, why they would not want the collection of this data?

Really simple, it does not back up what they are selling, and the only reason is the bottom line.

It would stop the gravy train of $$$$$ from fearful idiots buying the next must have killing machine.

With bump stocks, and silencers or suppressors or what ever the fuck they are calling them now.

BTW, I am a gun owner, my family are gun owners and LEO's.

Oh yeah and I am really good shot.

I just know what reality is and personal anecdotes about being law abiding and responsible is pure bullshit.

I'm a shooter too - of rifles. Sport shooting is one thing. Shooting guns designed to kill people is not fun - it's bad for America.

my cap and ball Colts (1858's, .36 and .45)(repro's, also), my repro Colt Walker, and my original Trapdoor .45-70. Am I making America bad???

"Shooting guns designed to kill people is not fun - it's bad for America." Your statement.

BTW, I am a gun owner, my family are gun owners and LEO's.

Oh yeah and I am really good shot.

don't even know why I bothered to respond to you...

Just asking a question that you seem unable, or unwilling, to answer.

?

"BTW, I am a gun owner, my family are gun owners and LEO's.

Oh yeah and I am really good shot.

I just know what reality is and personal anecdotes about being law abiding and responsible is pure bullshit.

"BTW, I am a gun owner, my family are gun owners and LEO's.

Oh yeah and I am really good shot.

I just know what reality is and personal anecdotes about being law abiding and responsible is pure bullshit."

So the question is this. Having made one statement you then make another, one that should be called the "bullshit" as you do not believe that those "personal anecdotes" are otherwise.















'

Here's the relevant section of the article I linked.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-poverty-of-data-journalism-and-the-irony-of-gun-control

We have safety regulations on children’s toys to reduce the risk of a tiny number of children who choke or could choke on tiny toy parts. Whether this level of risk aversion is wise or paranoid is an interesting question. But there’s no question that we think about risk and remediation in a radically different way when it comes to firearms.

There is a literalism here and a myopia that is not intrinsic to data journalism but is pervasive within it, a failure to think beyond the numbers to the social implications of the numbers or – more arrestingly – to get lost in a fascinating tree and not see the forest. This myopia is bound up with the irony and tragedy of the gun control movement itself. It has been argued back into such marginal and often trivial reforms that they can be plausibly and even persuasively derided as simply not worth the effort.

and what regulations are there?

What about small toys? What about trampolines (NRA's usual whataboutism talking point when they're backed against a wall by stats).



But here's the real point.
Here's another kid killed by a gun:
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1299167.1364299917!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/stanlane27n-2-web.jpg

You have an opportunity to HELP PREVENT DEATHS like this. DEATHS OF KIDS SHOT BY GUNS. All you need to do is advocate for tighter gun laws. Why won't you do that?

I also believe in science.

The Australian government statistics my source cited trumps those. All of them repeat each other or take the claims by some gun control group at face value.
They also fall for the typical logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. According to the 15 peer review studies, there is no evidence gun laws had anything to with it. BTW, private gun ownership is higher in Australia today than then.

Including one that explicitly explains why your WaPo cite is wrong. And that one I agree with - the WaPo article misses the forest for the trees.

I just posted the pictures of two kids killed by guns. We should ban guns to reduce those deaths.

like proof of cause and effect, or actual statistics from the Australian government (and explain why New Zealand had the same situation even though they did nothing.)

As I've now explained twice, and Josh Marshall once.

But since you apparently can only have a discussion around data, I can give you data

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence

most criminology studies, published in criminology journals instead of medical journals, say the opposite.

Medical people know stats a lot better than criminologists, as a general rule. (Clinical and epidemiology studies use professional statisticians.)

Here's the Weeds link, also.
https://www.vox.com/2017/10/3/16411676/the-weeds-australia-america-gun-violence

let alone capable of understanding the nuances of criminology.

Vox is one of the most in-depth, well-written, thoughtful sites on the modern internet. You're just being disingenous now.

It is poorly written and moronic postmodernist drivel. May I suggest expanding your horizons?

Read the data I linked, and all the sources. Look at the kids' pictures, the kids who are now dead because of guns.

Then take a look at these. And think about what you want to support.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

but it isn't a call for violence. It is reaction to the illiberal left, like Antifa, violence. The opinions of three people I don't give a shit about is not convincing.

...AKA 'Think of The Children!' are timeworn antigun techniques:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

"Think of the children" (also "What about the children?&quot is a cliché that evolved into a rhetorical tactic.[1][2][3] Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).[4][5][6] In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.[1][2][3]

Art, Argument, and Advocacy (2002) argued that the appeal substitutes emotion for reason in debate.[1] Ethicist Jack Marshall wrote in 2005 that the phrase's popularity stems from its capacity to stunt rationality, particularly discourse on morals.[2] "Think of the children" has been invoked by censorship proponents to shield children from perceived danger.[7][8] Community, Space and Online Censorship (2009) argued that classifying children in an infantile manner, as innocents in need of protection, is a form of obsession over the concept of purity.[7] A 2011 article in the Journal for Cultural Research observed that the phrase grew out of a moral panic.

Ah, yes- the "saving innocents" claim. It's an old and time honored political technique:

Not only is it a bad policy proposal, it is unconstitutional.

I don’t care about absolutely stupid quibbling about the definition of what gun is what. Guess what. We should ban all guns except hunting rifles - single shot hunting rifles. People can then quibble about assault rifle definitions when they get to see them at museums or licensed shooting ranges where guns can’t be taken off the premises.


Gaaa. This conversation is an infuriating repetition of pro gun talking points.

Hey. Guess what. Guns kill people. Like those two kids above. Lots of people. We need guns out of America.

As the article showed, using objective facts based on peer-reviewed social science, people use guns to prevent violence than to do violence.
"pro-gun talking points". You call objective facts and reason "talking points". Yet, you offer no facts nor evidence. That tells my I won. That is why your side is losing and a stone holding the party down.
Here is a question, did any gun control group condemn former CA senator Leland Yee? If they did, I missed it. All I saw was "we are saddened by losing an important ally". Yee wrote many of the gun control laws recently passed in California. He also pled guilty to weapons trafficking among other things. He was conspiring with his many friends in organized crime to smuggle machine guns into the US from the Phillippines.

I honestly don't believe most gun control activists believe gun laws will reduce crime or save lives. The leaders like Bloomberg and Yee frankly don't care about saving lives. It is about the culture war, authoritarian control, or trying to look tough on crime. Then there is Chicago.............
Where it is really about distracting the populous while having mutually beneficial relationships with drug gangs.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/

Obama and Bloomberg (Bloomberg is a racist) live in cities where drug gangs kill each other for profits. BTW Every country that have higher murder rates than we do all have stricter gun laws than the US. Again, heroin has been banned for over 100 years, yet kills 44K people a year.

I doubt the "political scientist" is a real scientist.
BTW, your logical fallacy is an appeal to unqualified authority.

Tell you what, open your mind and read the actual studies and see which ones follow the scientifc method.

However the Fifth Amendment comes into play. "While the federal government has a constitutional right to "take" private property for public use, the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause requires the government to pay just compensation, interpreted as market value, to the owner of the property, valued at the time of the takings. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined fair market value as the most probable price that a willing but unpressured buyer, fully knowledgeable of both the property's good and bad attributes, would pay. The government does not have to pay a property owner's attorney's fees, however, unless a statute so provides."

And where would the several billion dollars come from?

And are you willing to go house to house searching for them, with no legal warrants?

Recall the handguns. They're defective. They kill Americans.

Just keep wearing out those keyboards, gun controllers...

I live in an American city. Because handgun carry is legal, and because illegal handguns flood the city, my kids are at risk of getting killed every single day.

And any American that loves guns designed to kill people is complicit.
Keep single shot hunting weapons. Ban handguns and every other gun.

We need a handgun ban.

Then ban muzzle loaders. Or single shots with scopes. Or bayonet lugs. Or anything made after 1787. Think that covers it all.

A recall is not a ban.
Lots of things can be used to kill.

read my edit.

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.