sjalterego:

Granted, in jurisdictions where gun ownership is permitted, criminals seldom obtain their guns legally. But illegal guns begin life as legal ones. . . . More legal guns therefore mean more illegal guns. More illegal guns mean more people get killed.

How is this true? The "illegal" gun market is already saturated. Absent a complete ban on handguns [is that what you actually want? if so just come right out and say so] criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns. Absent such a draconian restriction gun laws such as DC's only operate to disarm the law abiding. How exactly did DC's gun law, while it was valid, succeed? The empirical evidence is very strongly in favor of the conclusion that DC's gun laws did little to nothing to disarm criminals but certainly succeeded in disarming the law abiding or making criminals out of those who were otherwise law abiding citizens.

Even an all-out nationwide ban on handguns doesn't guarantee anything beyond a drastic increase in prices and a surge in profits for illegal dealers and smugglers. I'm not aware of anywhere on the planet where processed cocaine is still legal in any form (it's definitely illegal everywhere on this continent and has been for many years), and yet the stuff is produced and distributed in huge quantities every year, and is available in the USA to virtually everyone who wants it. Good luck achieving better results with total prohibition of anything that'll still be legal to produce and use in other countries, and will continue to be used by various government agencies here....