Search every property for guns thoroughly, and securely destroy them when we find them
Closely restrict and monitor imports & immigration to make sure nobody’s sneaking guns into the country
Keep careful track of all metalworking tools & machines to make sure nobody’s making guns on their own
Then we will prevent violence that occurs because
Somebody wanted to hurt someone/something, and a gun was the only weapon available that gave them enough attack to do it.
It won’t prevent violence that occurs
because someone’s plans require threatening & making good on a threat (i.e. criminal activity, guard work, etc.)
[li]because someone snapped & started attacking in the spur of the moment with a weapon that’s not a gun (knives, caustic sprays, etc.) or without a weapon.[/li]
because they want to make a political point and/or satisfy a desire for attention.
Admittedly, some of those cases will turn fatal with a firearm but simply result in injuries or surrender without. However, the person using a firearm for a threat isn’t always the aggressor.
Yeah, the point I was trying to make is that having any sort of effect will be obscenely invasive, expensive, and time consuming — and it still would only prevent a narrow category of violence. That last sentence was supposed to point out that there would also be violent events that occur that wouldn’t have occurred if the populace was still armed.
How many casualties are you willing to accept in the pursuit of searching every house? If your answer isnt, “Somewhere near what we suffered in combat deaths during World War I,” you need to forget the entire exercise.
If we
Search every property for guns thoroughly, and securely destroy them when we find them
Closely restrict and monitor imports & immigration to make sure nobody’s sneaking guns into the country
Keep careful track of all metalworking tools & machines to make sure nobody’s making guns on their own
Then we will prevent violence that occurs because
Somebody wanted to hurt someone/something, and a gun was the only weapon available that gave them enough attack to do it.
It won’t prevent violence that occurs
[li]because someone snapped & started attacking in the spur of the moment with a weapon that’s not a gun (knives, caustic sprays, etc.) or without a weapon.[/li]
Admittedly, some of those cases will turn fatal with a firearm but simply result in injuries or surrender without. However, the person using a firearm for a threat isn’t always the aggressor.
They are gonna need a sh*tload of toxic masculinity to get that dun.
Yeah, the point I was trying to make is that having any sort of effect will be obscenely invasive, expensive, and time consuming — and it still would only prevent a narrow category of violence. That last sentence was supposed to point out that there would also be violent events that occur that wouldn’t have occurred if the populace was still armed.
How many casualties are you willing to accept in the pursuit of searching every house? If your answer isnt, “Somewhere near what we suffered in combat deaths during World War I,” you need to forget the entire exercise.