[jimmytidey]

A agree you can't 'get all the guns back', but there are still reasons to consider more stringent controls, two spring to mind:

1) It's about the social permission you give to people by making guns easily available. For example, in many European countries, bars, pubs and drinking are an absolutely central part of life, whereas in the US drinking establishments often have a much more 'taboo' vibe about them. Alcohol consumption is much lower in the US than Europe. Obviously there are questions about cause and effect, but I suspect that if the US made gun ownership into a more transgressive behaviour, there would be less gun crime.

2) Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference. In the UK you can only buy paracetamol (Tylenol) 16 capsules at a time. Nothing stops you buying more by going to multiple shops, or by going back in the same shop multiple times. But that extra bit of friction has dramatically reduced the amount of paracetamol lying around in people's homes, and suicide from paracetamol has radically reduced as a result.

I get the principle you are articulating, but, in practice, it's probably quite a bit more nuanced. Texas isn't likely to be a state full of criminals, rather it's a state with different social norms around firearms, and permissive gun laws.

[Ancapistani]

> Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference

I have three firearms in my safe right now that were 100% legal when I purchased them. They came with a copy of a letter sent to the manufacturer by the ATF that clearly and explicitly states that they are legal as configured. January 31st of this year, the ATF decided that not only are they illegal, but they've always been illegal. If I don't destroy, modify, or register them they will each carry the same penalty as if I had manufactured machineguns in - checks calendar - 22 days.

Oh, and the registration process requires me to sign a statement indicating that I have committed a felony. The ATF has promised not to prosecute me for it, but... well, forgive me if I don't trust the ATF.

This is not the first time I've had hundreds or thousands of dollars of my legally-acquired property declared retroactively illegal.

I'd love "a tiny bit of friction", because this is ridiculous.

[mindslight]

If you're a city dwelling blue tribe member, read and reread this comment until you can understand where it's coming from. Most "gun control" legislation has resulted in arbitrary technical restrictions, utterly ineffective for their stated purpose, enforced in a draconian manner where everything is either perfectly legal or an immediate federal felony. Calls to "ban all guns" are a choir-preaching pipe dream, and there's little reason to believe that such a push would produce a different result this time.

What we actually need is consistent legislation across the board that removes the minefield for most gun owners, while focusing on graduated regulation of the states of people who own/carry any type of gun, making sure they're mentally competent and attached to reality - especially as social media pushes more people to become detached.

[mcphage]

> Most "gun control" legislation has resulted in arbitrary technical restrictions, utterly ineffective for their stated purpose

I'm not sure that's true, given the rise in gun violence starting when the last assault rifle ban ended in 1994.

[laverya]

The federal Assault Weapons ban started in 1994 and ran for 10 years.

Assault Rifles have universal background checks complete with fingerprints, a multi-month waiting period, and a $200 transfer tax - and have since the 1930s. No new assault rifles have been available for civilian purchase in almost 40 years.

[mcphage]

> The federal Assault Weapons ban started in 1994 and ran for 10 years.

D'oh! Apparently "what number is higher, 1994 or 2004?" is too much for my primitive human brain.

[laverya]

No worries, we've all done it!

And for that matter the most advanced artificial brains screw up math on a regular basis too

[mcphage]

> January 31st of this year, the ATF decided that not only are they illegal, but they've always been illegal.

What do you mean here by "always been illegal"?

[arprocter]

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria...

[giantg2]

"Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference."

If it is a tiny bit of friction, then SCOTUS would likely allow it. If not, it could be struck down. But what tiny bit of friction is being proposed that will have an impact on homicides?

It seems your argument is that reducing the number of guns will reduce shootings and that we can reduce them with "a tiny bit of friction". But the courts are generally holding that if the restrictions prevent qualified individuals from obtaining a gun, then it is not a tiny bit of friction, but an infringement on rights. It seems these are incompatible.