I read the article from The Economist and I'm not moved.
I understand why the author feels as he does, and from his point of view it probably makes sense. But he doesn't know the US.
Friends, there are millions and millions of firearms held privately in the US. There is NO WAY to disarm the US public. The culture here is different from other countries, and a big percentage of the US population is not going to give up firearms no matter what the law is. It can't be done. An attempt would indeed create armed resistance from numerous groups, and many more people would simply stash their firearms away along with hundreds of rounds of ammunition. They might otherwise be "law abiding" people, but the culture of gun ownership is too deeply ingrained. I'm inclined that way myself.
Moreover, even making an attempt at complete disarmament would require repealing the Second Amendment, which I honestly think is impossible.
Gun laws can be modified, and I suspect they will be. But disarming the US public is not going to happen. That's not an emotional argument, it's a simple one based on an understanding of how pervasive and culturally imbedded firearms ownership is.