Immediate questions: to continue the dialogue. Who are the new laws going to be enforced by? Specifically, how do you address rural and exurban sheriffs and police departments who practice "nullification" and states/counties that set up "second amendment sanctuaries"? Will there need to be funding allocated to the ATF to hire new, very large nation-wide police force that does raids in rural areas when state law-enforcement refuses to assist in enforcement? Are people who already own to-be-illegal guns allowed to be grandfathered in their ownership or will they have to forfeit them to comply with the law? If they are grandfathered in their ownership does that solve the problem given how many guns are already out there, often in white-supremacist hands? If they must forfeit them, how is this to be enforced? Will we expand prison populations to house those who disobey, despite having the largest prison population per capita in the world already? Or will fines and confiscations be the only enforcement mechanism and we hope that after decades of being fined the number of illegal firearms will naturally fall off at a rapid enough rate that they are hard to obtain within some of our lifetimes? If we just accept that this will be disproportionately enforced, how do we combat the inequalities in convictions, prison populations, economic well-being, etc among different ethnic groups due to the uneven enforcement of these laws? Will black, indigenous, and other people of color get reparations because the law only de-facto applies in our communities and not the second amendment sanctuaries where white people live? Will stop and frisk be explicitly outlawed so that those of us who don't own guns but look a certain way aren't racially profiled on the premise that we might have an illegal gun but really it is because of our race? Will regular police patrols be limited to shotguns or will they be exempted as they tend to be in current legislation? If they are exempted, why?
What kind of dialogues are you used to having where you spew out 20 questions at once for the other person to respond to? This seems more like an attempt to shut down the dialogue by simply overwhelming the other party.
Given that the other party started with one-sentence flippant responses that weren't relevant to the text quoted, who exactly is attempting "to shut down the dialogue?" Anyway, the questions aren't rhetorical. They are legitimate. Some of them are sub-questions meant to expand on a more general question. But ultimately the general question is, "how do we equitably enforce new gun laws in the United States, given that the institutions of law-enforcement are highly racially-biased and given that past and current gun laws are disproportionately harmful to BIPOC persons?"