LogFAQs > #965322295

Sackgurl posted...

that, and the goal is to reduce innocent gun deaths

we don't talk about criminal activity-related violence and the associated firearms death rate for a reason.

if a bunch of gun nuts respond to a ban by becoming insurgents and are neutralized by the US armed forces, their deaths are not murders

i'd estimate my acceptable number at five hundred thousand dead gun nuts being my upper bound for it not hurting us more than it helps us

being clear, only if they are shooting first

if they choose civil disobedience, that's fine. they can then have the full experience of civil disobedience that all prior civil rights protesters experienced: being arrested and sitting in a jail cell, while the thing they were resisting (their firearms being collected by the authorities) still happens

Yeah I mean, I take a pretty strong stance against any sort of state sponsored violence. Your threshold of feeling that half a million people dying due to not giving up their guns and being willing to exchange gunfire over it is way above my own threshold. Like Idk how good Is feel about even a thousand people dying.

I'd much rather incentive people to give up their guns. Like just straight cash or something for giving up your guns. Though I'm sure there is no shortage of negative implications this could mean on other issues. Reducing gun ownership to those unwilling to give up their guns at any cost doesn't necessarily sound like the most favorable outcome. Then again, neither does 1000-500,000 people dead after choosing to exchange gunfire with federal authorities. And neither does the current situation of fairly frequent mass shootings with completely innocent victims.

Like it seems that no matter what, there will always be victims in this and it's all a matter of picking your position and/or reducing negative outcomes. There doesn't seem to be any sort of true winning in handling this.