• Wrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Again, the point is we’re not even there yet. We can theory craft all we want, and you can poke imaginary holes in every measure taken. And in the end, you will still reach the conclusion of “if it’s not perfect, why try?” and nothing will change.

    So, why bother? No matter what solutions someone brings to the table, you will not be satisfied.

    • Frog-Brawler@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve yet to see a solution come to the table. That’s my point. There certainly are plenty of people making claims that it needs to be done, but no one to provide the “how.”

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Draw a line in the sand for weapon varieties. For me, that’s semi auto. Allow shotguns, bolt action rifles, etc for practical use and self defense. But any line will be hotly debated.

        Ban sales of new ones. Give X years for voluntary surrender of existing ones.

        After voluntary window expires, send authorities after registered ones, or just send fines for a while.

        Any crime after mandatory kicks in gets multiplied if an illegal gun was in proximity.

        Then, time.

        Happy? It’s pretty simple to get started. Then iterate when actual problems manifest.

        • Frog-Brawler@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          After voluntary window expires, send authorities after registered ones, or just send fines for a while.

          This part doesn’t work with your “solution.” Do you expect the police to enter people’s homes and take their guns?

          • Wrench@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Iterative. Fines, court dates, warrants when it comes down to it. Sentencing enhancements for crimes.

            I wouldn’t send authorities into homes, no.

            • Frog-Brawler@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fines, court dates and warrants do not take firearms out of the hands of people that would rather die than give them up. You’d eventually need SWAT tasks force level initiatives to go and kill resistors eventually; I find that highly unethical.

              • Wrench@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                And there it is. Exactly what I said was going to happen. What was the point of this exercise?

                • Frog-Brawler@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  And there it is…? Would you have preferred I started off with that statement in the future?

                  The point is that you cannot effectively remove guns in the US, without substantially increasing loss of life, and that’s why it doesn’t happen.

                  • Wrench@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Let me remind you of my comment above

                    Again, the point is we’re not even there yet. We can theory craft all we want, and you can poke imaginary holes in every measure taken. And in the end, you will still reach the conclusion of “if it’s not perfect, why try?” and nothing will change.

                    So, why bother? No matter what solutions someone brings to the table, you will not be satisfied.

                    You proved that correct. There was no point to any of this.