handguns wouldn't suddenly disappear through attrition, there would be less and less, over Decades this is long term marc
2 + 2 = 4 But, over many decades it may equal 10. Afterall, everything I was taught as a child is different today (according to some folks).
I suspect in a few minutes one of you may very well demonstrate some "magic" by pulling a rabbit out of a hat right here on ET!
Fractals' law states: "The best government is the one that regulates and taxes you and regulates and taxes me not at all". I admire drug cartels the most, they follow Fractals' law to the letter. Under that kind of administration I would be allowed to 3D print guns of any size and shape and never disclose anything. I like that. That brings me to another universal law; "you can do any goddam thing you want so long as nobody else knows about it". That one works great for a lot of psychopaths btw. Fractals' Law will bring about my ideal government and I'm starting petitions to that effect immediately if not sooner. I have to have a name for it though, thinking of the Education and Health Reform movement. Nobody reads legislated s%^t, I'll get it done eventually.
This has been discussed on this forum before. While it is true that some handguns would vanish over a long, long time, the price of weapons would skyrocket. People would care for weapons like never before, and gun smithing would be an underground skill. I have weapons from the early 1900s, pristine and like new. I know others who have collectors items as well. A gun can be maintained forever if treated right. Your decades of time to see an improvement would be met by technology in 3d printing that would counteract anything you would see in any remote benefit. Right now, you can 3d print a pistol that can handle up to 100 rounds before it's non-functional. Can you imagine what decades would do? Your "solution" is not a solution at all. Don't feel bad, there is no real workable solution.
This pie in the sky gun ban is clearly in violation of the Second Amendment. The government cannot impose burdensome requirements on the exercise of a Constitutional Right without compelling justification. Even then, the burden has to be related to some legitimate goal of government and not to simply burden exercise of the right. The whole intent of this proposal is to undermine the Second Amendment, so no amount of claimed justification would be sufficient.