Because they are going to stop robbing and murdering if we don't confiscate their guns?  I'm not denying that the biggest issue with outlawing handguns is the reactions of the criminal element (and the crazies in general), but it's not like it wouldn't reduce (if not practically eliminate) gun related crimes after the fact.  The actual act of confiscation wouldn't be easy, but hardly impossible.  Harsh penalties and prison time could be applied to those who hid their weapons, and obviously they wouldn't have to confiscate rifles and hunting equipment.  

So, since we're dealing with happy-magic imaginary land we can just eliminate criminal's desires to do harm or break the law at all ...

We are being spied upon and they want to pardon the treasonous phone companies.
If they finally take our guns, then America is truly dead.

there will always be guns...debate over....could you see the south giving up their guns....not happening

The problem is, having a gun for self protection actually increases your chance of being shot. Lets say you get mugged at gun point, you pull out your gun in self protection - what does the mugger do now?

You're mugged at gun point, you don't have a gun - you just get mugged.

Gun laws are at least part of the reason why America has ridiculous amounts of gun related deaths, part of the problem is also cultural but gun laws are an issue.

@Chris. You're an idiot.

Edit: @Guy saying that this is an attack on your freedoms.

Most western countries with freedoms more pronounced than America have far more relaxed gun laws. Banning guns isn't going to kill America, it'd probably save Americans though. 

Therein lies the problem. No amount of gun control ever has or ever can make criminals turn in their guns, so denying the law-abiding majority the right/ability to defend themselves and their homes from the lawless minority is unjust in my opinion.

Edit: @Rath  

The mugging point is valid as you wouldn't really have time to reach for your own weapon, and the NRA even advises people to just acquiesce to the mugger's demands.  However, from a (hypothetical) criminal's perspective, what do you think they value more, their life, or the possibility that you have valuable stuff they can steal.  If I were a thief I would definitely skip any house where I knew or believed the homeowner was a gunowner in favor of an easier/less risky hit.  No one would rob a bank if they knew that at any time there could be 4, 5, 6, or however many people toting handguns inside.

Chris thats not a good argument.  Its like saying in 1859 no one saw the south giving up slaves either....but low and behold it happened because alot of angry moralists made it happen.

Right, because there are no countries in the world with democracy but also gun control.  I believe we have a lot of Europeans here who would find your claim quite insulting.  I'm a moderate.  I identify myself with neither party, and if anything I'm more supportive of McCain than Obama or Clinton this election, but I find it absolutely ridiculous that people suggest that liberals are trying to destroy democracy and remove all rights. 

What is the reasonable benefit of the right for a citizen to own a weapon that was designed for no purpose other than to kill other humans?  Hunting, sure.  That could be considered a sport and some actually do it as a valid means of gaining sustenance, but there is no purpose for owning a handgun other than to kill other human beings.  

Supreme court - deciding whether Guns will be permitted in households - truly a landmark case

 As I said earlier, its best if they don't try and defend their homes as it increases their risk of being shot.

If you're faced with a criminal with a gun its best just to let him rob you than to try and go vigilante and end up dead.