Likely, yes. One of the practical difficulties in the US, however, is that the pool has historically been replenished by the trafficking of guns. So yes, reduci

Likely, yes. One of the practical difficulties in the US, however, is that the pool has historically been replenished by the trafficking of guns. So yes, reducing the pool of available guns is prima facie sensible, but it takes a fair bit more than declaring guns illegal. Further complicating the issue is the fact that guns have a very long service life. I have an FB Vis from 1942 that still works flawlessly, despite having seen years of service in actual war. With ordinary care and the replacement of high-wear parts (the extractor, mostly, and maybe the barrel), I’d expect it to run at least another 100k rounds. The proposition to reduce gun violence by reducing the number of guns in circulation has to account for the guns already in circulation, and for the propensity of black markets to introduce new guns into circulation. Otherwise, the only thing achieved is the disarming of the groups of people with legitimate uses for firearms. It’s not as simple as “guns are the problem”, nor is it as simple as “more guns are the solution”, I’m afraid.