If one discusses the issue, consider that scholarly analyses of the AWB and mag bans found that they had no noticeable effect on any of the known crime indices. This was research funded by the DOJ - not a particularly friendly group.
They pointed out the reasons beingL
1. The existing supplies are such that the demand for those who truly wanted them could easily find grandfathered weapons and mags.
2. There was easy substitution of firearms with equal efficacy. The cosmetic changes to the ARs did nothing. Mini-14s were exempt and they have been used in massacres in relatively gun controlled nations (Canada and Norway). Massacres have occurred with 10 round magazine handguns (NY and VT are two). Some of claimed that you can charge the shooter when reloading. That assumes the shooter is close up. Not relevant to many rampages.
3. The gun world concluded from the studies that we should thus abandon gun control laws. Other studies have shown that any of the current laws have no impact on gun violence, BTW.
4. The authors and discussants concluded that only bans with mandatory confiscations of existing stocks and total bans on semi auto of all types plus higher capacity pump shotguns, lever action rifles would work.
Now such would entail cooperation of the population. That has not been clearly shown to be the case in Australia, Canada and USA states with such. Would the bad people turn them in? Surely, you jest. So good people do. You might argue that eventually attrition from the bad stocks will take them out. However, how long do guns last? We have seen antigun folks say that attrition will be a strong force because once you shoot the rounds from a higher capacity mag, that mag is used up.
Make sure you ban the thing that goes up.
Compliance would entail turning neighbor against neighbor and totalitarian level searches of houses to eliminate the guns.
Now such a ban would of course remove them from all the competition and hunting venues and plinking and square range practice, etc. But does that do anything?
Next you have to discuss compensation. It is estimated that there are about 10 to 12 million semi auto long arms out there. No one knows how many semi auto handguns. You can estimate that with 2 million handguns sold a year - over the years thats quite a bit. Gun estimates range from 100 million that would have to be confiscated to 300 million total guns in circulation.
Assume that you compensate people - which is probably the only Constitutional way to do it (assuming the 2nd Amend. is trashed).
Let's say each gun is worth $300 for gun.
$300 x 10,000,000 long arms = $3,000,000,000
$300 x 100,000,000,000 = $30,000,000,000
There are also the costs of running the program, which would be substantial. Check out the Canadian debacle - more expensive than thought and ineffective anyway.
I would suggest that those in favor of such a move - be compelled on their income tax to pay for such.
I understand the OP is a moral panic response that we have to do something. However, the costs of doing something and the violation of rights by a mandatory confiscation are staggering. We lose many more folks to cigarettes, cars, opiods and alcohol. The moral panic to ban them totally isn't there. That's because of the political dimension of gun banning. First folks don't buy into the need to have efficacious means of SD and they don't buy into defense against tyranny. Second, guns have become unfortunately totemic of the political right and thus the political left must want to destroy them independent of rational argument. Not that the right doesn't have its own totemic stupidity on issues, BTW.
There is nothing to stop folks like the OP from destroying their own guns and campaigning their friends and neighbors to do the same.
Now as far as defense against tyranny. That is poo-poo'ed by gun rights opponents. They are basically ignorant. Unfortunately gun rights advocates don't make the case well. They seem to support gun rights to fight against the tyranny of Obamacare or something else trivial.
However, if you know history - it was state militias that formed the core of the resistance to the British. Thus, forces outside of the governmental authorities of the time (the Crown) were instrumental to liberty.
In the precursors to the Civil War, private individuals fought against the legally empowered agents trying to seize runaway slaves. They even fought Federal troops that tried to seize such slave and even Black freemen. That is a defense against tyranny.
In more modern times, scholarship has clearly demonstrated that privately owned civilian firearms were crucial in protecting Civil Rights activists against the agents of the government (state and local police, night riders protected and encouraged by said states). Today, you find African-American activists suggesting the 2nd Amend. is necessary for them to protect themselves against the state. This is controversial as you may disagree with their analysis but it is clearly in the defense of tyranny vein. In the '60s and 70s, black activists carried firearms to protect themselves and suggest that they would fight against what they saw as tyranny. Again, you may not like their cause and the correlation of political polarization may make the current NRA unlikely to trumpet such incidents. However, the NRA has pointed out their contribution to fighting the Klan (which existed with the collusion of the state in many places).
Studies of genocide indicate that they occur if the target population is unable to defend itself. You may think that genocide is unlikely in the USA. Think again. In 1913, Germany was a civilized country. Historians were asked to predict which countries might go genocidial if you didn't know what happened in WWII. They said it would probably be France. It had a strong history of Anti-Semitism. In twenty years, Germany lost its civilized aspect to become one of history's greatest monster. Now, you may say - that will never happen here. We haven't faced the disruption Germany did. But what if we did?
We have some hints with the internment of the Japanese. Certainly our treatment of Native-Americans wasn't stellar. For historical buffs:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-garden-215522
I know folks who hide their religion to get jobs during the Depression because Jews weren't hired. One told me of her boss listening to the Nazi actions on the radio and saying that should happen here. There was a resultant altercation.
Some will say that you cannot fight the government as it has tanks and planes. They know little of such kind of warfare. It isn't 1000 nut jobs facing Abrams tanks. God forbid - warfare of such across the country assumes cooperation of the armed forced. You sure about that. Also, we have 5000 tanks. That's 100 tanks per state. You going to conquer the continental USA with such.
The existence of 10's of millions of long arms precludes thinking about such. Would the OP like to ride an APC through a large TX city to confiscate the existing gun stock?
To conclude, in the abstract if a celestial being removes all guns no one would be shot. Sure, before gun there were no massacres or genocides. Machete rampages like occur in modern Africa - so what - won't happen here.
There is no solution with any practical or conceivable confiscatory scheme. Suggesting such is just a political totem for cynical politicians of both sides to raise money and keep them getting elected. Sincere people should study up on the history, criminological and psychological literature before just shouting in moral panic.