And what benefit would this have? Other than to destroy the gun industry, an industry which employs millions?
In most areas in the United States where such legislation has passed, strict gun control has no correlation with gun crime rate. What makes you think it will effect the rate at which mass shootings occur? Why should gun control policy be solely based upon the goal of reducing the number of mass shootings?
Have you, in your life, ever met a gun owner?
The comparison to slavery is inane. Slavery is a blatant violation of human rights. The right to own a firearm is not.
Boo hoo on the gun industry, just imagine the jobs we're losing by outlawing meth production, murder-for-hire, euthanasia, or a million other industries, and the millions more that can't survive once you remove child labor, have a minimum wage, etc. Everything in society is trade-offs.
Banning guns in Chicago doesn't work any more than banning cigarettes in Chicago would work, because there are no borders of any kind. I'm also not suggesting banning guns, the extremist straw man that gun lobbyists always jump to, I'm suggesting much more strictly regulating them. But if you look at COUNTRIES that have stricter gun laws than us - basically any first-world country - you also see much lower gun death stats. Maybe I'm wrong! Maybe a country-wide law wouldn't work and we'd have to repeal the changes, like we did with Prohibition. But it's worth trying to significantly tighten gun laws.
"What makes you think it will effect the rate at which mass shootings occur?" Well, the US has vastly more mass shootings than any other country per capita (or in absolute terms). Are we really just that much more murderous of a people?
Of course I've met gun owners, including my parents and probably myself if I move back to an area where hunting is a viable hobby. Have you ever lived in a country with tight gun control? Walking around the cities feels immensely safer, because even if I get mugged, I'm only really at risk for some bruises and a lost wallet, not my life. The day-to-day peace of mind walking around London or Paris at night is much greater than SF, DC, NYC, etc. That means
more freedom because you're able to go about your day in greater safety, go out at nights more, don't (in the gun owner fantasies of self-defense via gun) have to spent hundreds on a lethal weapon to protect myself, don't have to worry about my kids' safety at school.
The 2nd doesn't allow, cause, or protect harm. It protects citizens rights to defend themselves with firearms. That a few lunatics use them in crimes doesn't mean that the millions of law abiding citizens should lose their rights.
Of course having widespread guns allows augmented harm beyond the harm that would occur without guns. Don't get me wrong, guns aren't the root of our problem, but addressing the poverty at the root of most gun violence is a lot more difficult (though I'd absolutely be for serious efforts to address it). We could live with tighter gun control without stripping away all rights, though, and that slide along the spectrum of options available to us as a society seem to me far more advantageous. People love to think in absolute terms, but "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy for a reason. Wanting people to generally be vaccinated doesn't mean I want to force-vaccinate those with serious religious objections. Wanting fewer, less destructive guns in America isn't asking for SWAT raids into the homes of every gunowner.