• 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.

    • Frog-Brawler@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The conclusions I came to are as follows:

      1. You immediately resorted to name calling when you didn’t like what I said… like some kind of petulant child.
      2. You make claims that we just need to “try” and then once a problem with your half-baked idea is presented, it became my fault
      3. I outright told you the point and you still missed it like a fucking moron.
      • foofiepie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • Frog-Brawler@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • foofiepie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

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

              Maybe tax the shit out of ammo and make the tax 100% fund hormone replacement therapy; or just something else nice to do for trans-folks…

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

                  I don’t think that the tax going on to pay for mental health services would act to disincentivize or dissuade from the purchase of ammo; it would be quite useful though. Maybe that’s better.