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.
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.
Assuming the thought experiment is reaching a system such as exists in many parts of the world including the UK and Canada, what do you think the best approach to achieve that, would be?
I honestly do not have a solution; that’s why I asked the question. Limiting ammunition sales significantly would help, that’s only part of it though.
There’s a second amendment to allow the right to bear arms, but I missed the part in the second amendment that makes any mention of a right to purchase ammo.
Ban the sale of all forms of gunpowder that can be used to remanufacture used rounds.
As far as solving the problem of getting semi automatic rifles out of the hands of people that should not have them goes, there’s only one method to do it, but busting into peoples’ homes and taking their stuff when they aren’t around isn’t likely to have 100% fantastic results either.
Fair enough.
I agree with your comment that at some point there’s going to be a shootout with SWAT if this happened, regardless of approach.
Financial disincentives perhaps? Make it prohibitively expensive to buy ammunition?
Iterative. Fines, court dates, warrants when it comes down to it. Sentencing enhancements for crimes.
I wouldn’t send authorities into homes, no.
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.
And there it is. Exactly what I said was going to happen. What was the point of this exercise?
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.
Let me remind you of my comment above
You proved that correct. There was no point to any of this.
The conclusions I came to are as follows:
Assuming the thought experiment is reaching a system such as exists in many parts of the world including the UK and Canada, what do you think the best approach to achieve that, would be?
I honestly do not have a solution; that’s why I asked the question. Limiting ammunition sales significantly would help, that’s only part of it though.
There’s a second amendment to allow the right to bear arms, but I missed the part in the second amendment that makes any mention of a right to purchase ammo.
Ban the sale of all forms of gunpowder that can be used to remanufacture used rounds.
As far as solving the problem of getting semi automatic rifles out of the hands of people that should not have them goes, there’s only one method to do it, but busting into peoples’ homes and taking their stuff when they aren’t around isn’t likely to have 100% fantastic results either.
Fair enough. I agree with your comment that at some point there’s going to be a shootout with SWAT if this happened, regardless of approach. Financial disincentives perhaps? Make it prohibitively expensive to buy ammunition?
Minus points for name calling and hypocrisy.
The name calling was to one person; and in response to name calling.
Care to point out the hypocrisy?
Calling him out for name calling then nar calling.