Yes, it does. As long as they don't already have access to it before you prevent them. Duh. If you put up a wall around something to prevent people from coming in, and they are already inside then it doesn't work very well, does it? Like trying to ban guns after they already have them. The wall works on people who aren't yet inside. Are you actually this fucking stupid? Why don't you take your front door off the hinges of your house because it doesn't keep people out?
Of course it would. Would not be able to buy them or own them. Heavy penalties for possession or manufacter. Duh.
Hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation and you think preventing owning or buying them will fix that. Then you want to prosecute tens of millions of people for owning firearms with heavy penalties. Sorry, but reality doesn't give a shit about your unicorn dreams.
It would help. Like speed limits help but don't prevent. Yet we have speed limits. And yes, if assault rifles and handguns are outlawed there would be fewer and fewer of them as time goes on and crazy Jimmy wouldn't be able to go to Wallmart and get one for his impromtu killing spree. This is common sense that gun nuts like you apparently lack.
This is not even the same thing. We have laws against murder to prevent people killing people with guns, but that doesn't work all the time either. If you wanted to do an apples to apples comparison in your example, you'd have to suggest banning cars to stop speeding. And we'd never do that. I've admitted many times that you would eventually have less guns if you banned them - but over the course of decades. In the interim, law abiding people would be defenseless, criminals would continue to commit crimes and you'd accomplish nothing to lower crime. In fact, you might increase it when the bad guys know the good guys have no defense. This is common sense that moonbats like you apparently lack.
You see this as a flaw in their plan, They see it as the central feature. They can criminalize millions of right-leaning voters and go after their firearms. Some will resist, then the media can play it up as a rightwing insurgency that must be put down with heavy force.
Will never happen. There will be massive law enforcement refusal and revolt over such an order. Right now, cops in states where things like the SAFE act (NY State) required registration have ignored requirements and not gone after anyone violating the requirements. https://oathkeepers.org/
No they would not be defenseless. What part of handguns and assault rifles only don't you understand?
A few might resist. Many more will click their heels and can't wait to bust your door down. Do you honestly think your local cops would refuse to carry out weapons seizures? In a town that elected Gillum as mayor?