Now a sometimes Fox News commentator, Krauthammer in 1996 laid out the plan for civilian disarmament, claiming it might take 50 years. He's got 30 left. How's that workin' out for him?

Note that he only compares firearm related deaths, not the overall crime rate, or even just the violent crime rate, which is much higher in Great Britain. Why would he leave that out?

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960408&slug=2323082

Excerpts:

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically.

It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.

Where is he now?

The conservative Krauthammer, is one of the most respected political commentators in the country. He used to be very liberal when he was younger, and he has always stated such and how he was incorrect...no secret there. Fast forward to now and he's on the right but doesn't always agree with some republican positions. His analysis and criticism have influenced policymakers for decades. In fact I believe he goes into depth about his transformation from a liberal to a conservative in one of his books. One thing for certain is that he's one very intelligent guy and highly respected.

Agreed on Bunkers post.  To add that while I may often agree with his views I find that the Dr. does have conflicting views more so than other more conservatives.  He is still middle conservative in my view and that isn't bad. Maybe a bit too middle of center. It is the far fringe of either side that does not see with the correct clarity needed to be truly effective.  The bunker mentality is about as bad as the far left.

I remember an article saying Krauthammer was originally a liberal but later changed to conservative.   
Wikipedia says he once worked for Mondale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

Here is the best interview he has done and he doesn't do too many interviews. He discusses his life, the accident, when he was a liberal and how he got to where he is now. Very interesting if you have time to watch it. I watched it when it first aired and it was really enlightening, interesting and inspiring in many ways.