About 20 years ago I saw a pretty well done research project by an economist on the housing market in CA. Of course that market was booming. The issue was development fees. My little home town, Ripon, was being swarmed by bay area commuters with good jobs and income who needed homse they couldn't get the liberal bay area anti growth communities to build. So they were building homes in the Central Valley. Ripon, wanted to charge the developers enough money to keep up with the growth, and the developers noted with every $1,000 in fees a "percentage" of the population was removed from the housing market. I don't recall the percentage - maybe .003 or something wierd like that but if you added up $5,000 in fees the percentage of course got higher and there was an exponential sum to it - meaning it wasn't .003 per $1000 that after $2500 it was .004 etc.
This is the same for gun ownership. Right now you can arm yourself with $250 pretty decent. In 2 years it might be $500. If that happens the number of people who can afford $500 vs $250 is dramatically different. 80,000,000 gun owners is one hell of a voting block - ask the Democrats of the mid 1990's what they paid for the AWB. They don't want to pay that price again. They will knock that number down to 64 million gun owners by increasing the cost of ownership. We discussed in another thread I'm on a 10 day waiting period right now for my new M1A. Why should I have a "cooling off period" as I own several AR's, ever hand guns, sever shotguns and more ammo then my local police department. What good is a cooling off period to "ME." Its not about cooling off its about control, its about making gun ownership less attractive. If that 'delay" enables them to get one person not to buy a gun (and it has) they are all for it.
1) They will most dramatically decrease gun ownership by increasing the cost of it - registration, fees, taxes and even market conditions!
2) They will less dramatically decrease gun ownership with regulation (registration, forms, checks, classes, renewals, and waiting periods).
3) They will further reduce gun ownership by making it less attractive to own guns in many ways, (economically, forced storage requirements, insurance, repeat classes, psyc evals).
Ultimately they will have gun ownership reduced to 40 million and then the voting block is not substantial enough for them to stop a gun ban. DiFi's current proposal is simple.
No more new AWs. No selling of AW's. No transfer of AW's but no confiscation - until after you DIE. Then it has to be disabled or handed into the state. That is consfiscation but
you aren't around to care. Oh and if you decide to hand it off to your kids ahead of time - you became a felon and so did them. That is the really even # on my list #4. Make
people into criminals, make them psycologically unable to own, etc.