I don't really care about this topic one way or another, I mean I have an opinion on it but I'm not passionate about my opinion enough to campaign for some sort of agenda.
Some things to consider:
Saying owning X amount of guns or type of guns or whatever should be punishable, because of the actions people are taking with them who acquire them illegally does not
change anything. It only creates a penalty for non-inclusive parties. It's setting an expectation that if X didn't own a gun, Y wouldn't have had the opportunity to commit a crime because he wouldn't have been able to steal it from X in the first place.
Here's the same idea, but with different objects used to commit different crimes;
We should really limit how many cars people have because there's too many cars being stolen, then used to commit crimes. If X didn't own a car, Y couldn't have stolen it and used it when he robbed a convenience store.
On a separate point, if you over-regulate guns you're effectively doing nothing about the violent actions people are taking that you are trying to correct. This is very close to creating a "War on Guns". It's as silly as the "War on Drugs" or "War on Terrorism". The idea that some guy who is willing to commit a violent crime is taking into consideration the consequences of his actions, and what is going to happen afterwards is absurd.
Criminals do what they do out of desperation, or something going on with the wiring in their heads (or combination of both). They are going to attempt to accomplish whatever it is they've decided is a solution to their problem regardless of what tools, or strategy they've devised, to do that with.
Take a look at this:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htmIn this current decade so far (2010-2013) the year with the most amount of murders, is less than any 1 year worth of murders from 2000-2009. The year with the highest total murders between 2000 and 2009 is only higher than 2 of the years in the previous decade (1990-1999) which has the highest annual murder count in 1 year for the last 53 years (obviously due to gangster rap). 1979-1982, and 1986-1995 are the only times we've seen murders reach 20k+. Since 1996 the cases of murder have steadily declined with very little fluctuation.
Regulation of guns is not going to correct social issues. Making stiffer penalties for committing violent crimes is not going to make someone willing to carry out harmful actions on other people reconsider what they're about to do. It's only going to affect what happens after the fact. The only thing making guns 'more illegal' does, is make people who weren't doing anything illegal before, a criminal. It does nothing to people who currently own illegal guns, or who will continue to acquire guns by illegal means. There are only a few ways you could ever expect there to be any impact on this, and one of them includes a much more broadened Patriot Act. That means a lot less privacy and a lot more intrusive hassle for everyone, the only exclusions of transparency of course existing in military, police, government, or people of extreme power. No more secrets, everyone knows everything about everybody. This is extremely unrealistic and undoubtedly regulation of this would be impossible.
Another alternative is these 9:10 illegal guns you're talking about; tell on them. Authorities can't be everywhere and know everything, they can only react to what they know. If you want things around you to change, you have to change what's ok and not ok in your book. Sure, no one likes a rat. Far fewer people like other people killing people. Social issues like this can only change if there are peers who are aware of tendencies and actions of a person and either influence them to change, or tell someone who can do something about it. If by your own admittance this doesn't correct anything, then we agree that this is a social issue and not a system one so regulation is out the window.
If I wanted to take the time, I believe I could spin just as many "facts" and useless information and shitty opinions to contrive an argument that; because in 1996 the standardization of consumer internet payment methods were changed to a flat fee, and accessibility to computers/phones/consoles with internet access is becoming more and more prevalent over time; would-be violent criminals are exposed to more alternatives or constructive practices they could be doing to expand their opportunities or get out of feeling "stuck", rather than following the footsteps of other violent criminals. Meaning the answer to violent crimes is really accessibility to quality education and information.
