I'm a sorta recent convert to the "Guns are the Problem" stance. And I still think that at the heart, it's a cultural issue that can romanticize taking lives and devalue lives in general. But having less hammers would mean less houses, yeah? Even with the same number of carpenters (who I guess don't build houses anymore. Oh well, it's late).

I like your idea in principle, because I wouldn't want to see heirlooms, a farmer's .22 for vermin, or a bolt-action hunting rifle taken away from their owners. And just compensation is always good, and who doesn't want to get out of taxes for a bit? I don't think it would work though. It's still too voluntary to bring in a truly effective number of weapons. And especially not the right kind of weapons.

Unfortunately, I have no clue what would work. It's a careful balance between Constitutional interpretation, legislative structure, lobbyists, citizens, states, the federal bureaucracy, and the thousand and one other things that matter with it. If something ever gets done, it's gonna be the wrong direction at first, and then they'll play around with it, maybe some executive orders and bureaucratic decisions some Court cases for sure. And maybe in the end it will be better, but maybe it will be even worse. And that would be bad.