HOWEVER.. The entire point of the amnesty, is to make it illegal for ownership of certain firearms, make them illegal to resell, etc., but you give people incentive to give up and make money from the ones they shouldn't own

The issue is the antigun groups are targeting rifles. You know how many people are killed by rifles a year? 1.5-2.5k, this is all rifles and shotguns combined. You know how many people are killed by AR-15s a year? 50-100...yea the weapon of choice for murder here in the states is handguns. It's not about keeping people safe, it's about virtue signaling to their base.

Over time, you end up with far less guns in circulation.

Pandora's box is open here. There is no closing it

That's what happened here in Australia.

Not really, you all now have more guns in civ hands than before the ban. Ratio wise it's less but that's because you have more people.

You might still have a huge amount of firearms, but the aim isn't to solve the problem overnight. But, it saves a huge amount of the problem immediately, and over time, it solves the issue..

Unless you plan on banning knives, which kill around 3.5k a year (yes that's correct more than all rifles and shotguns combined) then it's not about saving lives. It's about saving certain lives.

It works.. It worked for us. You're playing the short game.

It worked for you, because you have safety nets. You don't have a shit ton of gangs and drugs flowing through the streets. You don't have cartels 4 foot from your boarder. You also don't have the population size we do.

You're trying to argue that unless the solution is 100%, it isn't worth pursuing.

No, I'm arguing that it's a solution that will not work for even 5%. As I have explained above, rifles which are the targets, make up basically nothing when it comes to firearm deaths. Yet they're the constant focus. If we're to fix our violence issue here in the USA, we need to help get people to stop being violent first.

No, but we have some of the most effective protection against shootings in the world. So it would be silly to ignore a working solution. We don't have a lot of the things on that list

You have some major ones on that list. You for one don't lock up everyone who is a non violent drug offender to the point that you create broken homes which fuels gang membership. You don't have qualified immunity either, which here in the USA, 1 in 40 of our gun deaths is by the police. (Yes you read that correctly, the police here kill on average 1k Americans a year via firearms). You have single payer healthcare, you give a shit about your citizens and have safety nets. We lack so much that it drives our citizens into poverty and creates prime circumstances for violence.

No one argues other. But you rebuke the notion that the war on drugs has any significance on the broader topic. Basing opinions on falsities.

In other words:

it seems fairly dishonest, especially since

schools represent a vast minority of mass killings. Not to mention your baseless assertion that violence in schools must have no relationship to the war on drugs. As if the gangs that move them don't groom children to sell them for them.

America has a gun problem and they are going to start blaming people who have sought medical treatment (for the children). They aren't going to go after people who should probably have medical treatment for mental illness through rigorous screening. These kinds of policies cause people to hesitate when they should seek mental healthcare. A big example is police. They are afraid to ask help because they could lose their job. It's a bullshit policy that does nothing to help the situation and puts blame on people who aren't the problem.