What do we do with the >350 million already out there? Easy?

Well other countries instituted their gun control policies, before the rate was over 1:1 with the population.Some countries (mostly small island countries) are more successful than others. 

But we have already discussed this and my skepticism that any real socialist could promote the disarmament of the proletariat by the bourgeois state before. Not interested in that conversation again.

Thats the sh*tty part.
It ll take years and years before you see a good "effect" from banning guns, simply because of how many guns, you fools allowed to go into circulation.

But ban guns, and 30 years down the line Im sure you ll see a postive effect.
I mean if it works everywhere else in the world, why wouldnt it work in the USA? or Brazil?

The problem is the gun lobbyist wont allow such a thing to happend in the US.
Guns is big bussiness, they profit off of death & crime and people's fear of it.

The only weapons sold legalized here are from a brazilian company (Taurus) which have the monopoly to sell guns, manly to police, terrible pispols for a price that is about 10 times more expensive than a pistol in US due to the huge amount of taxes on it. Criminals on drug cartels get heavy military equipment from overseas, then they can sell them to smaller criminals.

Other countries, which banned weapons outright (there are few) introduced their bans well before there was an accumulation of weapons. Japan was doing it since the 16th century.

What you are asking is for either 1. an ineffective policy or 2. the criminalization of otherwise peaceful people and more excuses for police brutality.

My policy is usually, "police first." If the police disarm first, then I might support putting weapons in collective municipal caches for common use, otherwise why should the common people be disarmed?

Theres a solution to that though.... get good quality Cops and lots of them.
Tighten controll of shipping, and make sure guns dont get in.

Its possible to controll that.

Because the "common" people are part of the problem.
And yes its gonna be hard and take forever to get all those weapons out of circulation.

But do you know what happends if you dont try?

Shit will never get fixed.


Theres a hole in my roof..... oh well it ll just drip abit, and i ll fix it by saying "thoughts and prayers".
Nothing will change unless you guys decide it needs doing.

And realistically the only way is a total ban, because regulation just doesnt work.
The sooner it goes into effect, the sooner things get better.

Our borders are too huge to be conrolled, even in US borders with Mexico, which are right now much better controlled, still lots of drugs and illegal guns come to US via Mexico. Imagine here in Brazil, which has even bigger borders with not only one, but several countries, in almost each one has its own drug cartels.

How are the common people "part of the problem"? That is a myopic perspective, which ignores the social factors which lead to the crime rates in the U.S and the mass shootings in the first place. Rather than put people in a straight-jacket, the goal should be to fix the fundamental problems which lead to people killing others: income inequality, poverty, drug criminalization, social atomization, capitalism, etc. I'd rather fix these more fundamental problems than treat symptoms. 

And you really haven't addressed the costs of banning weapons. The murder rate, police brutality rates, productive resources, etc would increase in the medium term, and time and resources would be wasted in much the fashion that they were wasted during alcohol prohibition, and our current drug prohibition. 

The U.S is too big of a country, with too many people to effectively ban guns without there being significant costs -- costs which exceed the costs of the social symptoms in the first place. 

Ending the drug war, reforming the criminal justice system, and giving a universal basic income would be miles more effective at reducing overall murder rates than banning weapons, and it wouldn't put racial, ethnic minorities, undocumented immigrants, etc at the mercy of police. 

1: Sounds like an excuse to make after an effort is made to replicate a system proven to be successful (provided it somehow fails), though certainly not an argument to continue sitting around with your thumb up your ass after decades (centuries?) with your thumb up your ass.

2: Canada is more successful than West Korea...despite being the second largest country, not an island, and sharing the largest undefended border with West Korea.

3: I don’t recall ever discussing that, but you are certainly free to quote me on it if I did.  Really sounds like you’re thinking of somebody else, though.

4: Ah, classic. Professing disinterest in making conversation immediately after jumping into someone’s conversation. Never gets old.  Oh, well.  Bye!