National registration just isn't practical, I'd say almost impossible.
1. ~about the same number of gun owners as passport owners... possibly more gun owners
2. 120MM more guns then cars
3. Guns are bought and sold at a higher rate than cars
4. Guns have never had a detailed registry
5. DMVs are supported by licensing and registration fees, cars cost what 30k+ new and I'm taking a WAGS have an average aggregate value of ~$8,000 meaning. So a 1% fee =$80. What is the average value of a firearm WAG $300 you aren't going to charge $80 registration fee per gun. Meaning the system would be a massive tax drain, incapable of paying for itself.
These problems are playing out right now, for instance MA has had to change licensing rules repeatedly to deal with system failures. License renewal from 1 year to 5 years due to volume, removing/ relaxing the interview requirement. Moving from all gun registration to new guns, now mostly hand guns and high capacity. These changes aren't NRA etc lobbying driven they are just due to the impractically of the administration task.
Point being, even if we all decided that a national registry + gun licenses was the way to move forward I'm not sure if we could make it happen. I'm comparing it to the DMV and Passport office because those are comparable "licensing systems" and look how they work.
That's not even mentioning trying to effectively link them to criminal or health records. Right now it's basically impossible for a MD in NH to transfer a patient to MA and have their records electronically follow them, you think mental health gun records are going to happen...
At this point I'm more interested in what we can do to change the culture, I was interested in what
@RyanBusse said about the NRA historically not allowing tactical products at trade shows.
Which came first the chicken or the egg?
Ski resorts didn't allow snowboarding at one time as well.
I listened to Ben Shapiro once say he has an AR.
Mainly because the government told him he shouldn't.
But now, 5 pages in you finally got to what drew my attention with the book.
Gun culture. What is it? The way Gifford's, and so by association, Busse defines it, is a best a negative.
Its a buzzword used by the antigun crowd to put all gun owners in the Ted Nugent camp.
We, as hunters, part of that gun culture, also benefit greatly by the "wanna be warriors". Pittman Robertson is majority funded by high volume shooters. The explosion in popularity of AR, and "high capacity" platforms has increased G&F funding greatly.
I do think their is a Blindspot among folks who live in Mont, or Utah for that matter. We get the luxury of supporting left leaning politics, because in the end we arent suject to the results.
My wife has employees all over the country, and world.
During the summer of love, one of her young, single female employees spent 3weeks literally locked inside her apartment, as the riots looted, assaulted, and burned her street, and surrounding neighborhood. She was terrified, to the point that my wife asked if I'd go get her and bring her back to Utah.
The fear mongering that the NRA admittedly has spread, as we watched cities burn, and violent crime explode, are no longer so far fetched. There is a reason new gun ownership exploded, and it has nothing to do with the NRA, or "gun culture", and had everything to do with another cultural problem.
It's easy to sit in Kalispell, or Bozeman, or Ogden and talk about this issue. But I did notice, during the riots in Minn, it wasn't store owners protecting their shops with Browning Citoris, or Ruger Vaqueros.
If the Gifford's folks had their way, it would be clubs and sticks.
But I'm open minded.
Busse apparently reads these forums.
Let's hear his definition of "gun culture"
