They will sit down and add up the immediate "health care costs" of patching up criminals, gang members, assorted criminals shot by both other criminals and by police, honest people, and people defending themselves, homes, and families.
They will add up the 'social costs' of "lost income, disability, SSI, survivors benefits, welfare for the families where applicable, etc., etc., etc.
Then, on "health care cost" grounds, and the "social costs", they will make their case before the taxpayer of how much money can be saved by eliminating firearms.
The same gambit was used in an attempt to push universal motorcycle helmet laws, and in some places it worked, even though the costs were inflated by at least a factor of four, and there were assumptions made which simply did not fly (that half of the costs would be saved, even though the costs cited in the study were claimed to be preventable, when the study did not state (nor was it known) how many of the injured were in fact wearing or not wearing a helmet.)
Proposals (that "reasonable restriction stuff") short of banning firearms and repealing the Second Amendment will include horrific taxes on arms and ammo (perhaps even on arms and ammo you already own), liability insurance requirements, and taxes/regulations on firearms to "offset the costs", without regard for the money saved by eliminating criminals, defending self, family, home or property, etc.
Just wait.
This is as predictable as water running down hill, and the advent of Obamacare will be the hook they use to dig in everyone's wallet if we let them.