It is a near certainty extreme resistance to some or all the proposals above., This will be the case even where the necessity for protective legislation is profoundly evident. All of them require the expenditure of additional costs which will ultimately be borne by the firearms purchaser.
In 2007 I wrote an article for Op Ed News, entitled, Guns Don't Kill, Bullets Do. The recommendations which I made then still remain in effect, unchanged. If implemented, these recommendations certainly would have absolutely no effect on the ability of the individual to use his firearms exactly in the same ways as he has currently does. It is true that gun dealers are likely to object since a portion of revenue will go somewhere else. But from the perspective of the consumer, this proposal is certainly revenue neutral. Instead, some of the burden of costs currently carried by law enforcement would be reduced.
This said, implementation of this proposal could replace or supplement all the proposals listed above. The legislation itself would be implemented at the state level, with agencies from the federal government providing consultation and assistance in drafting the legislative language. One of the ways that New Hampshire avoids the need for state income tax is through the state supervision and administration of alcohol sales. Thus, states should have considerable motivation to see the kind of revenue enhancement that the sale of ammunition would bring in reducing the costs of law enforcement.
And, the Black Swan Will Continue to Fly
It will be important that as a public we come to understand that no matter what we do, there will always be disturbed individuals who will gain access to lethal weapons; there will always be children who acquire firearms because some adults are careless. When that happens, there's a good chance that with no intention at all, someone will be injured or killed. When that happens, remember that the unlikely or even the impossible does indeed, sometimes happen.