That's as good a recommendation as one could make for the details. I can tell you this, from hearing it on various discussion programs about 15 or 20 years ago. There was a carry permit requirement ("Sullivan" law), and possibly a registration, though more of a formality than anything else. Bottom line was that in 1945 if you wanted a gun (not carrying) it was quite easy. In the same year, with a population of 8 million, there were less than 100 (I believe the figure was more like 45 or 50) murders with a gun. Currently, it's in the couple thousand range. And the laws are more restrictive.
I think some of the counters to the anti-gun people get too complicated. The antis contradict themselves with their own comments. (maybe this is where the original poster is going)
If more crime is logically (anti-everything, bizarro logic) addressed by more gun law, then how come there was less crime when by their own admission there were fewer gun laws?