Fewer guns mean fewer killings. We want a handgun ban.

[better]

84. I can't help but appreciate the irony that this

classic example of a strawman fallacy was so eloquently addressed by someone with the username "Straw Man".

But to more precisely address the problem with your suggestion, yes the idea is simple.
However, it is also wrong, as simple answers to complex issues very frequently are.

You don't need to be a firearms expert to contribute to the discussion. But you might do well to listen to Democrats who use the same lingo (and basic grasp of the facts) that gun nuts will use to tell people why they shouldn't vote for Democrats, to instead tell you why what you propose will shoot us all in the foot, because they will have the benefit of their arguments that we don't know what we're talking about and that we're over-reaching actually being correct.

Personally, I'd rather we not paint that target on our own heads, because they're pretty good at hitting their targets.

We've been down this road of over-reaching with gun control, with the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.
The immediate result was that Democrats lost their control of the House that they'd had for forty years.
It took 12 years and Bush the Lesser lying us into the war in Iraq and nearly crashing the global economy to get it back.

And that was back before the Bully Pulpit was used relentlessly to reject objective reality.

Not adequately understanding something we vote to support can have catastrophic consequences even for those who did know better. Like Dems losing both Congress and the White House because so many supported repealing Obamacare despite not understanding it.