Revisiting the dead horse, finding signs of life

The media, blogs and the world at large never tires of telling us that gun restrictions passed by legislation are either not possible or won't work. Or both. It's become an article of faith with them and the NRA, such that it does not need sources or really any validation, just repeating the dictum to anyone who mentions that gun deaths in the US are far out of line with the civilized world.

A study in Lancet, an academic, medical journal refutes this view with one of the few actual peer-reviewed study done by credentialed researchers at respected institutions. "Firearms Legislation and Firearm Mortality in the USA: A Cross-sectional, State-level Study," 

Researchers from Columbia University, Boston University and The University of Bern collaborated in writing the peer reviewed article, that while agreeing that some of the restrictions that have been suggested would have little effect, three in particular could dramatically reduce the number of gun deaths in the US. To the tune of a reduction from the current 10:100,000 to 0.16 per 100,000.

The three are:
1.  Laws requiring firearm identification through ballistic imprinting or microstamping.

2.  Ammunition background checks.

3.  Universal background checks.

So now the NRA will have to switch from 'it won't make any difference' to 'we don't want them because our masters, gun manufacturers, will have less profit'.

Seriously though, it's a different ballgame when the argument is 'we can't pass them' vs 'they won't work'. One requires a change in the public perception and attitude, one we already see happening here in the US. Millennials,  the new majority group, have a significantly higher approval of gun laws than my boomers.  Look at the gay marriage issue as an example of how viewpoints can change, sometimes dramatically, in a short period.