|
|
|
|
|
by jerojero
1484 days ago
|
|
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? |
|
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.