"I literally said getting rid of the existing guns is the really hard part."

1. your wording was ambiguous

"You compared guns and thieving in a logically unsound way"

2. no i'm saying that both result in an unsafe environment that necessitates preparations, how is that logically unsound?

3. what logical plan are you suggesting to take away the millions of guns already in circulation? if you don't have one then we are faced with the above condition correct?

" I'm saying it's a solution that would most likely work if it could be pulled off"

4. work with regards to what? stopping people from causing harm to each other? if the motivation drive is strong enough then they'll just resort to making homemade bombs with pressure cookers or whatever

the majority of murders as far as i know are caused by objects other than guns such as knives, that does not mean that guns should not be more regulated but i'm saying that its not really a solution to people wanting to harm other people

" but a lot would change if tools used for thefts were banned."

5. the same applies for the billions of people who have collectively faced government tyranny in the past and will in the future

perhaps if the jews had guns back in 1930s germany, their oppressors would have been deterred from fucking with them

1. It was not. You drew your own conclusions. I said exactly what I meant and nothing else.

2. You did not. You said this:

You compared potential solutions in a logically unsound way.

3. I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just pointing out a logical fallacy, nothing else.

4. It's funny how homicide rates are much lower in other western countries with tighter gun laws. I guess you have an explanation for that then?

5. I know, like I said. I was explicitly talking about short-term implications. Long-term implications of more restrictive gun laws are interesting though.