Seriously though, the problem with handgun control is the fact that it provides the police with a list of innocent names and honest people to investigate when a certain type handgun is used. Most handguns used in the act of a crime (other than domestic violence) tend to have never been registered, or had the serial numbers filed down so as to make the tracking of that handgun near impossible.
They tried this in Canada and it failed miserably. Some people may or may not register them. Some of those that fail to register them will be the little old ladies that didn't know their long past husband had a collection of WW2 weapons in the attic. To try to ban then in only one area won't work either. Unless the government can guarantee that burglars will only live in Renton, WA and not say Kent, WA and then commute to their B&E points.
There are good intentions with gun control and I commend those that share those intentions. The problem is banning them in a small geographical area, or trying to create a gun control registry tends to leave only the criminals free of being under suspicion for the very crimes they commit.
Some might argue it is the last line of defense against a government run amok. Some will argue it is a constitutional right. Right to bear arms. Some might even try to argue that the "right to bear arms" relates to the right to join an armed for and defend your country as a matter of personal pride and service. A right to choose to fight for your country or not. Perhaps it was meant to be protection for the citizens of United States to have the right to join a national armed movement to defend this land from the British. Perhaps it was meant to ensure that no single state within the union would try to prevent such acts of personal commitment to a national government. But that is seriously another debate. What if a right to bear arms did not mean the right to possess and own weapons for personal use but rather the right to stand up along side your fellow man and defend your country against attack from the enemy without fear of being charged for murder?
The debate over handgun control has been going on a lot longer than most would care to admit. Why it is being rehashed every time I will never know. The high violence rate has more to do with the lack of medical care people are able to get without insurance (such as anti-depressants and counseling) than it has to do with paper laws or the fact people own guns.
Sure if there were no guns, no one would suffer from the use of guns. Instead we would all suffer wounds from the end of a sword or some other crude weapons. Families would have their throats sliced instead of being shot. Violence would still happen. The problem would still be ever present. Take away the means and they will find another way. Take away the motive and with or without the means they will have no reason to commit crimes.
The problem is not going to be solved through gun control.