On 6/29/2018 3:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:09:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause indigestion for
many here ... is a required registration of all guns
and strict enforcement of the required registration. If for some reason
you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not registered to
you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of that firearm.

===

The usual argument against mandatory registration is that in can be
seen as a first step towards confiscation. That might seem ridiculous
to some but it has happened elsewhere, and it's very hard to put the
toothpaste back in the tube once the information and law is out there.
It would turn a large percentage of the population into law breakers,
sort of like prohibition and the 55 mph speed limit.



Australia is often given as an example after their mandatory buy-back
of firearms following the 1996 massacre in Port Arthur, Tasmania, where
35 people were killed. Two buy-backs were conducted, one in 1997 and
the other in 2003. The buy-back program also included new laws
governing gun ownership and qualifications with restrictions on
automatic and semi-automatic rifles, pump action rifles and shotguns,
stricter requirements for the registration of all firearms and stricter
requirements for the storage of all firearms.

Here's what's interesting:

In the two decades following the reforms, the annual rate of gun deaths
fell from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 0.9 per 100,000 in 2016 yet
today, in 2018, there are more firearms privately owned in Australia
than there were before the buy back programs and tightening of firearms
laws.

That may suggest that the number of guns didn't make the difference.
It was getting the unregistered, unaccounted for guns out of the
hands of people that probably shouldn't have them and then being
more particular about who can own a firearm moving forward following
the buy backs.