Can supporters of gun control explain the purpose behind a gun registry?

And registries haven’t stopped or solved crimes. Neither has “ballistic fingerprinting” (anyone who tells you that “ballistic matching”/”ballistic fingerprinting” is absolutely correct either has no clew what they’re on about or they’re blowing smoke up your ass - it’s more “art” than “science,” and toolmarks made by a firearm are in a constant state of evolution. Even two bullets fired consecutively don’t 100% match…)

Instead, gun control legislation only ever puts up more hoops for the law-abiding, and does fuck-all to catch any criminals. I’d say that it at least “enhances the sentence” when criminals are caught - but firearms charges are the first to be pled away when plea bargaining, so why do we even have those laws in the first place, if they’re not going to be enforced?

The purpose of a gun registry is to keep track of who owns what and how many - when neither datum is any of the government’s business, as a rule.

Satellites are polluting Earth's atmosphere with heavy metals. Could refueling them in orbit help? - Space

They want to control the law-abiding? There’s the entire thesis. People who want gun registries are also in favour of gun control (as noted in the Question,) and the answer is within the question. “Gun control” has precisely sod-all to do with guns, it’s about control. If “gun control” actually did anything about crime, more people would be on board with the idea.

Whenever anyone complains about crime or crime stats, I tell them, “Well, then, look into the causes of crime and address those. What drives people to commit crimes? What drives theft? Burglary? Robbery? Assault? Murder? Rioting? Mayhem? Figure out how to address the causes - and be more consistent about dealing with violations instead of those ‘selective enforcement’ nonsense. (Like how the J6 people are getting shafted - hard - but the intentionally destructive BLM/AntiFa riots of 2020 were given a pass, despite causing billions in property damage, destroying businesses (many black-owned,) and killing at least a half-dozen people (I can’t remember a precise number, but I’m fairly sure it was more than a half-dozen.) Selective enforcement doesn’t help anyone. Consistent enforcement does.

If you want to see firearms crime drop, enforce firearm law. cf: “Project Exile.” Happened on the East Coast a little bit back, where it was mandated for a couple of years or so that, whatever other deals were made, firearm law violations received a mandatory sentence (and, I think, usually the maximum.) And whaddaya know - firearm crime when down! Why aren’t they still doing it? Because the touchy-feely leftist lunatic frings started bitching that it “disproportionately affected minorities” (well, let’s look at crime statistics and see what we can expect, hm?) and they made enough of a stink that politicians lost their will and blinked.

Byron Allen Puts His Local TV Stations Up for Sale - The Hollywood Reporter

Which was, frankly, stupid. The leftists should have been told to fuck off - if minorities are being affected disproportionately, perhaps minorities should not commit crimes disproportionately… (I know - simplistic solution. I’m a simple sort of guy.)