We've discussed this. You tried to say this before, and I pointed out how it might also work here if we executed people for drug usage/trafficking like they do. Is that something the Democrats would like to support? Because I think that if we executed people for drug use, it might actually curtail drug use in this country. So you might be on to something.
Sorry, could you expand on your overly verbose posting? What does "or guns" mean? Should we execute people for possession of firearms, too? Is that what you are advocating?
Well the law has to be effective in denying access. Merely making something illegal does not deny access in the way I am using " deny access." What I mean by deny access is you can't get it, because it virtually does not exist in the general society. Therefore you can't even steal it. That's why the mass shootings carried out using assault weapons, what New Zealand and I call "military style," are virtually non-existent in our sister developed nations. Those assault weapons we are both referring to are virtually non-existent in the general society in these other nations. Although mass shootings with these weapons could still occur and have in the these sister nations, the probability is extremely small compared to the probability in the U.S. And we know why that is. There is virtually no reasonably easy access to these guns in these other societies. Yet there is a plethora of guns used for sport in these sister nations.
Ok, so we are getting close to an agreement here. Your words: "The law has to be effective in denying access. Merely making something illegal does not deny access in the way I am using." Completely agree. So how do we deny access to firearms? There are hundreds of millions on the street right now. Do you go house to house? Even that isn't going to deny access. Making a law won't do it - you said it yourself. So what is the action that gets all or even most of the firearms in circulation that you want out of everyone's hands?
The difficulties in any confiscation scheme demonstrate how inadvisable it would be. It's not the sole reason to oppose them though. Even if the gun grabbers had a perfect and effective means of seizing lawfully owned guns, it would still be un unacceptable. We the freakin People have the individual right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court agreed with that. If that right means anything, it certainly covers the most basic home defense firearm, the AR 15 style modern sporting rifle. Saying they are "too dangerous" is just another attempt to reargue the actual right to own a gun decision. And that's not up for debate. It's settled law, just like Roe v. Wade.
Of course no one is seriously proposing to get all, or even most, firearms out of public hands. It's only a few very specific types of firearms that some are proposing be removed from the retail and private market, while a buyback program for these same guns is instituted. We can discuss the practicality of such proposals later. Regardless, any proposal that is being seriously considered has to be compatible with the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. As such, these proposals would leave millions of guns in private hands. Nevertheless, after some time, a decade say, the virtual disappearance of specific types of guns would be expected. As a result access to these types of guns would become very difficult. For all practical purposes access would be denied. You just wouldn't be able to get them without taking huge risks and going to a great deal of trouble.