There is so much wrong with this logic.
How does one "control" 350+ million guns
Amnesty and destroy
You don't aim for "complete control" - but when you reduce 350 million + guns to even maybe 250 million guns, you commensurately reduce the chances of one of those guns being used to murder 50 innocent school children.
criminals who, aren't exactly worried about the illegality of them?
They may not “exactly be worried about the illegality”, however the police will eventually catch up with them. Here in Australia, we regularly hear about “illegal guns found and destroyed” when warrants are executed, or criminals are apprehended and the like.
That (the above) has got to be a better outcome than “leaving guns in the hands of said criminals because it is their constitutional damn right to have them”. Surely?
relinquish that capability of protection?
How often does one “save their family” by the ownership of a gun? Be honest here, come on. Certainly a damn sight less than those who lose their family
because of a gun.
It is more about relinquishing criminals’ capability to destroy you.
who want them badly enough will simply 3D print them I suspect.
[my emphasis above] – That is exactly right. Only those who want them badly enough will 3D print them. That will be a lot less than a transient lunatic who wakes up on a whim and decides to pop off 50 school children.
Noone has said you will “eliminate gun violence”. But reducing should be a first priority – a mass shooting almost
every single day is a statistic not to be proud of.
RCHeliGuy said:
As one of the 75% in this country without a gun, making guns illegal is all upside to me.
I don’t think anyone wants to “make guns illegal”, just like no one will ever “eliminate gun violence”. If you could get from 300 mass shootings a year to 200 mass shootings (or maybe even 100 mass shootings) a year then it would be a nice start for you.