Besides the two choices that can work, my point was, one of the many outcomes of the remaining choices will lead to non-law-abiding people possessing guns, and law-abiding people following the gun laws, possessing no guns, and this situation will be a lot less desirable than either no one have guns, or every body have guns. It is precisely because doing something that's complicated is going to lead to a high dimensional landscape of possible policies and many unknown outcomes, I think it's wise to stick to more simple, predictable solutions, because otherwise you're doing something you don't know what the consequences are. And it is because politicians and the electorate have the tendency to be doing that in the U.S., why U.S. has mass shootings every other day, and why that isn't true for a country like Australia, which undertook option 1, because it was feasible for a relatively centralised, unified island country, as compared to the U.S.