Doug wrote:

Now back on topic .... I debated myself whether it's wise to go
after the legal or illegal guns first but I felt it's easier to do the
legal ones which might spread out over to the illegal ones to a small
degree. And by doing this, might work out the kinks in so doing. No
doubt the illegal guns will be harder to find or control so I felt the
legal ones should be first. Yeah, this might sound like a penalty for
a legal gun but my purpose is for a strategy of finding or accounting
for guns as a whole. As I said, it's a debatable issue which to go
for first. I don't claim my way is the only way to go after guns.


By "go after," I assume you mean confiscation. In furtherance of the 5th
Amendments "Takings Clause" (... nor shall private property be taken without
just compensation.") you would no doubt agree that some government must pay
a reasonable sum for each weapon confiscated.

Best estimates are that there exist some 240 million firearms in the
country. At, say, $500 fair market value each, that works out to be $120
billion. Excluding suicides, there are some 11,000 gun fatalities per year
in the U.S. Some are accidental, some justified (i.e., self defense), but
let's stick with 11,000.

Now, assuming you COULD confiscate all the guns and, as a result, drive the
unjustified gun deaths to zero, that would make each life, for the first
year, worth about $11 million. As time goes on, you amortize the initial
"investment." That is, the second year each life would be worth $5.5
million, the 3rd year, $4 million, the 5th year $2.2 million, and so on.

Now the average life saved in stopping gun homicides is worth about eighteen
bucks. My calculations show it would take a bit over 600 years to break
even.

This is a BAD bargain, even for the government.