Easy, but wrong-headed assuming the intent is to save lives.
Banning types of guns makes sense only in limited cases. Heavy machine guns for example have no conceivable non-military application that cannot be met by a more efficient and wieldy alternative. If we wanted to reduce gun deaths (and I assume we all do) then we should realize that despite sensational outliers, fatalities due to exotica like semi-auto versions of military long guns are a tiny fraction of those that come from the cheap and ubiquitous .38. Banning the former (of which I own and will always own not a one - no saving personal oxen from goring here) would be like banning only Mexican cigars over 7" in length to save smoking deaths, but leaving cigarettes freely available.
Banning types of ammunition has some more valence but not much. Small caliber steel tipped bullets for example are available but rightly banned from civilian sale because their extreme penetration renders use in typical human habitation dangerous for anyone behind the legitimate target (and, probably more germane to their proscription, renders almost all body armor useless).
Banning guns that are substandard and unsafe with responsible use would do a little, and protect shooters more than the shot, but I for one see no reason to offer anything without a trigger guard or without adequate safeties that prevent firing when dropped etc. Ditto for anything which is prone to blowback or explosive fracture on misfire (yes .40 cal Glock, I mean you).
Banning types of loading devices would be little more than a feel good bandaid and may in effect risk higher body counts in mass-killing outliers as the extra-capacity magazines are far more prone to jamming than standards, but it has the advantage of probably being passable politically. Wouldn't object there either, as long as standard capacity is acknowledged to be a variable rather than fixed number.
Banning a combination of firearm and ammunition on the basis of unreasonable risk to unintended targets when used by a basically competent but inexpert user would be somewhat effective but require exceptionally thorough specification and testing. But if we do find a way to identify overpenetrative, wildly inaccurate, or otherwise uncontrollable combinations then count me in for being ok with lopping off the bad eggs. Possible examples would be the Scandium airlights with hot .357 magnum loads, FN Fivesevens with hard ball, cheap spray and pray AK replicas and so on, but again would need more rigorous examination than my thought experiment could provide.
But if you want to lessen gun deaths none of these will be serious impacts. The only things that would be are utterly unworkable and centuries away (if that) total bans, which would entail true police state tactics, a massive body count and hugely disproportionate penalties for would-be gunsmiths etc, or the far more feasible overhaul in not what guns are sold but how and to whom they are sold. Other gun-owners certainly can and definitely do disagree with me, but I could favor highly restricted sales channels with individual assessment and background checks for all sales including resales; licensing and registration of individual firearms to owners with serious penalties for illicit resale, unreported theft, or suspiciously frequent theft; requalification intervals with safety and competency testing and rechecks; a fully funded and required mental competency reporting system that was consistent in all states and applied standards that neither permanently disarmed, say, a temporarily depressed teen nor relied on spiteful or activist tittle-tattle, while removing the option for the truly high-risk individuals, even with unavoidable grey areas; a reasonable but not unduly restrictive qty limit (if you collect antique firearms, they don't all need to be functional and while yes there are different guns for different needs, the additional utility of your 5th, or 50th, double stack semi-auto in 9mm/.45ACP is not really worth much is it?).
Depends on whether you seek a doomed grandstanding cause, feel-good inanities, or tough but compromised middle ground.
= new reply since forum marked as read
