The same way every other country has gone about this.
This has been done after wars for example (after WWII), and after many different conflicts in different countries in Africa. It would take a long time and would require tightening laws gradually and at the same time encouraging people to hand in their weapons.
This is not particularly difficult logistically, the only difficulty is in the American psyche apparently, which seems completely incompatible with this simple common-sense measure. The outcome would be fewer deaths by cop, fewer deaths in burglaries, and fewer mass shootings.
There is abundant evidence from around the globe that limiting the ownership of guns helps limit deaths.
No other country has anywhere near the absolute or per capita number of firearms that the USA has. We own almost half of all civilian firearms, more than 100x the US military, more than every military and law enforcement agency in the world combined[1]. Nor would a forced attempt at disarment be peaceful given our history and attitude towards government infringement.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has already ruled that total ban on firearms in common is unconstitutional[2][3]. Hence why DC and Chicago no longer completely ban handguns. I also don't think the in common use standard will hold since the Supreme Court more recently reiterated "the Second Amendment ex-tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms"[4]. It is the opinion of some that DC v Heller was watered to get Kennedy on board. Moreover, as California has already argued, you cannot ban something then down the road argue that it's not in common use since the low numbers are artificial.
> To the extent that magazines holding more than 10 rounds may be less common
within California, it would likely be the result of the State long criminalizing the buying,
selling, importing, and manufacturing of these magazines. Saying that large capacity
magazines are uncommon because they have been banned for so long is something of a
tautology. It cannot be used as constitutional support for further banning. See Friedman
v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Yet it would be
absurd to say that the reason why a particular weapon can be banned is that there is a
statute banning it, so that it isn’t commonly used. A law’s existence can’t be the source
of its own constitutional validity.”).[5]
This has been done after wars for example (after WWII), and after many different conflicts in different countries in Africa. It would take a long time and would require tightening laws gradually and at the same time encouraging people to hand in their weapons.
This is not particularly difficult logistically, the only difficulty is in the American psyche apparently, which seems completely incompatible with this simple common-sense measure. The outcome would be fewer deaths by cop, fewer deaths in burglaries, and fewer mass shootings.
There is abundant evidence from around the globe that limiting the ownership of guns helps limit deaths.