Unfortunately, that's not how it works. There is no database connecting owners to guns[0] let alone ballistics tests to serial numbers.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
NIBIN is a database of shell casing toolmarks that can potentially link shell casings found at different shootings together.
For example, in San Francisco it was illegal for many years to own an airsoft gun (replica firearm that fires little 0.2g plastic pellets). This was struck down only when Arnold Schwarzenegger passed a law to the effect that replica firearms were to be regulated at the state level. It is hard to see what a ban on airsoft guns was intended to accomplish, since they are not viable as weapons at all.
More seriously, California laws concerning handgun sales prevent Californians from benefitting from safety improvements in newer firearms (as well as preventing them from benefitting from the coolness of new firearms). Only handguns on a select list are permitted to be sold in California, and Kamala Harris closed the list some years ago. Ostensibly this is because the state of California would (a) like to see newer handguns implement "micro-stamping", where the gun imprints its serial number on each shell and bullet as it is fired and (b) believes this technology to be generally available. It's not that (a) is a bad thing but (b) is completely false; there are virtually no firearms that implement micro-stamping.
Most absurdly, the ban on "assault weapons" is in practice a ban on rifles with a pistol grip, as opposed to those with a classic stock. Rifles are used in a small minority -- 5% -- of shootings, in any event. They are (a) inconvenient to transport and (b) harder to use for a robbery, where the robber would like to have one hand free to grab stuff. The ban on rifles with pistol grips is something that is more a matter of showing the flag than affecting a real positive public benefit.
Travel restrictions on firearms are also more onerous than useful. In California, we can travel with firearms to any place where we may legitimately use firearms or transship them, but woe betide us if we should stop for a coffee on the way there. Thus we may travel to and from a shooting range, but not stop for lunch at any point. Given that we are to lock our unloaded firearms up when we travel with them, it's hard to see what is gained by preventing us from stopping along the way.
Is it different from martial arts people who are eloquent and informed about swords?
I don't want to turn this into a political flamewar, but please don't assume malicious intent as the primary motivation for a tool's existence. That's like saying lockpicks are only good for burglary, axes for dismemberment, or knives for stabbing.
Non-violent guns: https://www.navalcompany.com line throwing shotgun
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_gun Flare gun
And blanks are used to sink things in concrete.
It's a tool. It has a function. The function of the tool is independent of the intents of it's wielder.
An example of this 50 miles north: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Andy_Lopez
Openly carrying a replica firearm like that can be unwise. In SF, it is still unlawful. It seems like restricting brandishment and not ownership would be the minimal and reasonable legislation.
Airsoft guns are effective in robberies / when making threats, as they look pretty real. This allows people to use them like they would use a real gun.
From that article, "Since 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than have died in all our wars put together. In 2014: 33,599. Who's doing all the shooting and where are they getting all those guns and how many do they have and can't we get control over this clusterfuck? Wouldn't a national gun registry give us a tool to stop some of the killing?"
Consider that ~ 2/3 of those are suicide when interpreting the numbers and impact a searchable federal registry may have.
>That's been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America's gun owners.
I'm not a gun owner but the risk/reward of creating said digital registry is unclear to me. There was a newspaper (in NY I think) who published a list of registered gun owners names and addresses several years ago and it struck me as counter producitve.
This seems like a fairly wild speculation. To pick just one possible counter argument: are you suggesting that criminals, if they could choose, would prefer to rob homes that they know beforehand are heavily armed?
USA may implement it differently or in a less secure way, but it can be implemented effectively.
There are certainly unregistered guns, but only guns rights groups with a barrow to push say unregistered guns make up an order of magnitude less than what you are saying - like, 25 times less.
Not everyone lives in California, and IIRC it's even legal to buy a gun in, say, Nevada, and bring it into California if it is legal to own there.
It is a violation of federal law to buy a handgun in a state you're not a legal resident unless you go through an FFL in your home state.
And in California (where this happened), all private sales must go through the DROS system
There was an amnesty similar to what you're talking about in 1968 with the Gun Control Act, and it's the only firearms amnesty that's been offered.
The "Firearms Owners Protection Act" of 1986 (why is it that these bills always do the opposite of their title) did not have amnesty provisions. The big thing it did was ban civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms with specific exceptions where stringent requirements are met.
https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/52520-11-397...
If, in fact, what you're arguing is correct, then they must have added a serial number when registered.
The NFA requires all registered weapons to have a serial anyway, so I doubt what you're claiming happened.
https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/52520-11-397...