[themacguffinman]

But why stop there? Why not ban cars completely? That will reduce car deaths even further.

We can reduce sexual diseases even further by regulating who you can have sex with. If you've ever had or transmitted an STI, you're on a permanent banlist. You can obtain a license by proving you have no history of reckless behavior and have a clean record of health.

We can also reduce homelessness even further by finding every homeless person and forcing them into a government house. Homelessness is a travesty that must be reduced as much as possible, isn't it?

Hey, there aren't any ideal scenarios but we can reduce it further, can't we?

[jerojero]

This is not entirely true. You're arguing for prohibition, and in many cases prohibition will lead to black markets and other undesirable outcomes.

In a country like Spain or wherever in Europe where people haven't been owning and open carrying guns for dozens of years it is not unreasonable to think bans wouldn't have an effect on people. But if you try to ban something outright, something that people are used to, you're going to get problems.

Banning sex has, by the way, been tried. If you ask a religious person what's the best way to deal with teen pregnancy they are going to say abstention. It doesn't work.

This should led you to believe that there is, in fact, a sweetspot between regulation and prohibition and that's really how most competent politicans should look at these issues. I don't think a gun ban is reasonable in the USA; but I would argue you definitely need more and progressive regulation so that the population is slowly disarmed. But how can you do that when it is literally in your constitution?

[themacguffinman]

So what's the sweet spot for regulating sex? Some people get permanently banned, others don't? You have to check in with the government on who you can have sex with, but they'll only enforce some checks? Some people get "STI PreCheck" conditional on good behavior, but others are subject to more scrutiny? What's the plan to progressively ramp up sex regulation so that the population is slowly de-sexed?

I appreciate your honesty about your motives: you want the population to eventually be disarmed. That's a non-starter for a lot of Americans who believe it to be a civil right, not something to be negotiated and progressively removed.

[calvinmorrison]

I think most Americans view it as a "Natural Right" not a civil right.

[pirate787]

Spain, which has had a fascist dictatorship within living memory, is an example of the importance of the right to bear arms.

[pjc50]

They had a literal civil war, and the fascist public won. I have to admit that I don't know much about 1930s Spanish gun law but I suspect they were available; certainly once the war started all sides were being armed from outside.

[titaniczero]

What about banning new people (e.g.: born in 2016 and onwards) from using them like some countries are banning smoking?

[hardware2win]

Cars have stronger and more useful "positive" use cases than guns

[themacguffinman]

What's more "positive" than the ability to defend yourself? You're just preaching to the choir if you don't accept other sides' perspectives on the value of guns.

[ahtihn]

The fact that you think you even need to defend yourself is a sign that there's something deeply wrong with where you live.

The first step would be to somehow fix that. Make everyone feel safe enough so they don't feel the need to have a gun to defend themselves.

[calvinmorrison]

> The fact that you think you even need to defend yourself is a sign that there's something deeply wrong with where you live.

Yes, I live in a boring dysfunctional dystopia called "Philadelphia", with a murder rate hovering above South America and edging into Africa's numbers

[CapricornNoble]

Which is why so many (mostly pro-2A) people are saying that the root cause is mental health in America, and addressing that should be the focus of our efforts rather than burning man-hours arguing over the symptoms (gun violence).