The "big shift" that is taking (has taken) place, with a fair bit of unwitting support from this site's membership too (it seems to me) is the move from "wild life belonging to no man until lawfully taken" to "wildlife a national asset"(read the SNH publications, those are exactly the words they use) Curiously, there is also a hugely proprietorial mind-set that regards "wild life on my ground" as "mine"... which is why the wool is able to be draped so easily. It is only a short step from where we actually are now to legislation which finally makes all "wild" life property of the state... thereafter it truly will be a "national asset" and the sort of controls I outlined above then follow with little effort and it's hard to see how there could be effective opposition when/if such legislative shift gather momentum.
As for; who makes the money? Yes, that too will shift... hence a' the greetin'.
Will there be fewer guns? ... Maybe's aye, maybe's naw. Every attempt, so far, at reducing numbers of guns possessed seems to have failed. My dad owned a .22 rimfire and a 12b, he was a farmer living on his own land. Even my son, who doesn't own any land, owns several times more guns than that now and he lives in the middle of Edinburgh.
Speakin' fur mi-sell... I could manage fine with just one gun... a nice double rifle with interchangeable combination and shotgun barrels would meet all my needs.
They say, "there are many ways to skin a cat"