See Venezuala. First came registration, then confiscation, then conflict. The government would round up as many guns as possible before war broke out in the streets.
It's an interesting hypothesis that more guns in the hands of civilians would have resulted in less bloody conflict (as opposed to military escalation in light of armed resistance), but I don't know how one proves it. What's the control group?
Have fun launching missiles at American cities and insurgents embedded in civilian targets. Even shooting missiles at the desert kill enough innocent bystanders to radicalize the enemy, now imagine doing that in Miami and Houston.
I have imagined it, and it's horrifying. But not guaranteed to radicalize people outside the immediate effected area against the ones pulling the trigger.
Philadelphia bombed a city block to flush out an entrenched armed group in the '80s, and life went on (for everyone who didn't have their home burned down). Don't underestimate the American capacity to believe something was done because it was necessary. It's the only country to have ever deployed nuclear weapons. Twice.
I'm curious as to why gun advocates trust the candidate who says they want to confiscate guns less than the president engaging in authoritarian and corrupt behavior.
The whole point of the right to bear arms is that they're meant to be used against the government when they overstep their bounds. But what happens when the people who bear said arms agrees with how the government is breaking the law?