That is why you need to increase the price.
I don't know many people who do not want a mink coat, a Ferrari, a 75' yacht, a personal jetpack, a Gulfstream VII airplane or tickets to the Super Bowl.
Do you know why most people do not have mink coats, Ferraris, a 75' yacht, a jetpack, a Gulfstream VII jet, or tickets to the super bowl?
It isn't because they don't want them.
It isn't because they are not available.
It is because of the price.
You drive the price of guns upward and wow, you'll see them disappear from the street and you'll see them become as ubiquitous as minks and Ferraris.
Intelligently make it to where the costs are too high you'll see drug dealers have to resort to other means of violence.
Mexican drug cartels and E. european arms manufacturers are NEVER going to "drive the price up" on guns or dope. They are quite happy keeping the inner city drug/gun/thug culture just they way it is.
There are steps you can take. For example, you change the priorities of the National police forces. Does the NSA really have to listen to so much chatter? Does the FBI really need to worry about pirated music? I say get the military involved as well. I think it's a matter of national security.
Your surrender posture is silly.
Start another thread. How about why it's a good idea to artificially change the value of the currency system? 'Make hundred dollar bills worth ten cents and one dollar bills worth a thousand dollars and everyone will be millionaires overnight'.
Artificially is your word.
This is the outline of the way it will work. On the legal side:
I described it earlier in this thread. Simply make the stores that sell the guns buy a bond for each weapon. They stock 3,000 guns, they have 3,000 bonds. So stores buy fewer. That dries up supply because manufacturers will not be making so many weapons. Anyway, when they sell the weapon, the buyer buys a bond to go along with it. So a $500 gun now costs, for the sake of argument $1,500. The "bond" is $1,000 and matures in, lets say, 30 years. You can buy as many guns as you can afford but each gun will need it's own "bond". But for the sake of this example, lets stick with a purchase of a single firearm.
The $1,000 is invested in the State's pension plan or a similar vehicle that has a guaranteed return. Understand returns will vary depending on what vehicle is used in that state. It maybe a long term CD or used to purchase government securities. Something with a guaranteed return. During the life of the gun, you sell it, the buyer takes over the face value of the bond ($1,000). So if you sell for $250, they pay $250 but must also spend $1,000 for the "bond". You get your $1,000 back from the government. Anyway, at any point, the gun can be turned into the State for whatever they are willing to give you + the bond's new value (capped at $20 or $30 thousand). So if you hold to maturity and the maturity is $30,000 (unlikely), you get whatever the State paid plus $30K. You can keep $29,000 of that and keep the $1,000 bond and go get yourself another gun if you like. Or you can simply surrender the bond for $30,000.
Keep in mind that, like all State fees, they tend to raise over time. The minimum bond amount at the time of your bond maturing may be $5,000 or more.
So that is how you intelligently raise the price of the gun. Again, the goal is to dry up supply. As price goes up, supply will go down.
On the illegal side, here is what happens. You make crimes involving a gun (doesn't need to be fired) by the assailant a crime punishable by 20-30 years. No time off; no parole. You steal a gun...the same thing applies. So when the cops eventually catch up to Skeeter or Tyrone and get his gun, that is another gun off the street along with an irresponsible gun "owner". They have a new charge for him (fail to maintain financial responsibility) in addition to theft and/or aggravated assault.
Meanwhile, the supply is drying up. Gun owners are keeping their guns longer to cash in on the investment vehicle. Manufacturers are making fewer and we have re-directed the FBI and NSA and US Military toward gun interdiction efforts to stop the flow of illegal guns. We can even get the State department involved to freeze assets of nations exporting guns to the US illegally.
Thus the price is going through the roof and someone looking to buy a cheap weapon is out of luck. So Skeeter is now relegated to using a knife. Meanwhile, the CHL holders--responsible gun owners--are no longer facing a guy with a gun, they are facing skeeter with a butcher knife. Much better odds.
Also, meanwhile, Mr. and Ms. Responsible John Q. Public gun owners are free to purchase weapons, still. No infringing on the 2nd amendment.
