The analogy between a handgun ban and alcohol prohibition is inherently limited. The up to 50 percent of owners who do not want a handgun for either crime or self-defense might surrender theirs, particularly if, as is suggested, market value were paid for each gun surrendered. Nor would most people interested in handguns only for sport subsequently evade the ban by acquiring handguns on the black market. But a ban that reduces handgun ownership serves no purpose unless it reduces violence. To do this, a ban would have to also disarm the person who keeps a gun for self-protection or crime. While some protection owners would voluntarily comply and others would disobey and rationalize their disobedience, the critical question is whether, and how, a handgun ban would affect the 1 in 54,000 handgun owners who commit murder. This .018 percent must be assumed to be the least responsive of all handgun owners to law. Proponents of handgun control must show that it can be effective and enforceable when dealing with this .018 percent whose handgun ownership 'causes' them to murder. A total of 70 footnotes is provided.