This reply can wait for you to return.
Indeed my intent was mostly towards the rifles/shotguns, but yes there's never a guarantee of anything. And of course even with restrictions as I suggested there would be shootings. The only things we can do is create less and less opportunities for such accidents to ultimately occur. And as noted two of my replies ago: I fully acknowledge black markets exist, but the legal avenues - and hence the easily accessable avenues - will be heavily mitigated if not negated in general. That's more of a relief than anything. From there discerning intent will be far easier.
As for uprising or revolution... well let's be real, we've had automatic weapons banned before (see the '94 ban on Assault weapons), and...
As seen in this image, between 94 and '04 we saw a huge dip in the number of homicides based on firearms, most likely this is a direct correlation, although I cannot state so as fact but instead as an inference based on such info. (Edit/Note: In 93-94 there was a drop, but nowhere as sharp as 94 to roughly 96)
(Although
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...yweapon.svg/325px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png - implies that handguns have a higher general rate of homicides, for some reason the ban seemed to have indeed had a role to play in the downfall in homicides as from '93 on there was a huge decline in gun based homicide in general).
As seen above - we endured a 10 year ban of assault (including automatic) weapons without a revolution. I'm sure we can handle another ban of guns.
If people seriously are going to revolt against a government for restricting access to lethal weapons to very precise requirements for not only their safety but others, and considering that these tools have no purpose in civilian hands except as 'a hobby', then well, those people are probably extremists to start and a threat to national security anyhow, although that's one point of view. That's the same as if they get angry for a ban on the civilian ownership of nuclear weapons, as I referenced in the first message.
In the end, all we can do is our best to hinder and restrict the motions of homocidal individuals. While handguns will always remain the more accessible method of murder as seen in the charts, the fact remains that they are also comparatively less frightening weapons and also more fitting self defense than the rest. When someone can give a legitimate reason for owning these more dangerous guns other than hunting (government should manage or restrict these rifles to hunt clubs or the sort, and hold hunt clubs constantly responsible for their stocks) or war time (go join the army then...), then I'd support civilians holding these weapons.
EDIT: to make something clear, I am not trying to use this as a springboard to say "BAN EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE A THREAT". I namely infer this as a means to mitigate threats that should never be in civilian hands. Here's a few examples of my opinion:
The substance the killer used (Tannerite) for bombs? Should be banned. It has no household use beyond as an aide in gun fire accuracy tests, and hence has no place in civilian hands due to the potential it has as a bomb. If they want to test their accuracy, they can stare at the hole they make.
Rifles - They are not for defense. For one when an enemy's on top of you, you aren't going to find it easy positioning a rifle and shooting your foe compared to a handgun. They're designed for mid-long range shootouts, as was their intent - for war.