• Arbiter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    This is pretty fucking elitist.

    If you don’t want guns go all in and ensure the elites cannot have them either.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          Same can be said for OP and Steve over here, the former of whom posted it presumably because they take it at face value as a good idea, and the latter defending it because he clearly does.

          In times like that it can be a worthy pursuit both to refute the premise, as the poster who said “this is pretty fucking elitist” was doing, and to remind people of the nature of comedians, as you have done.

      • StaticFalconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Except the top voted comment for being the answer is a joke says a lot about how much people are willing to actually think about a solution that isnt something far fetched.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        It’s a simple, easily enforceable policy, with no constitutional hangups.
        Gun deaths will absolutely plummet. Lives will be saved.
        But sure, lets not do that because the rich yada yada yada.

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It’s a simple, easily enforceable policy, with no constitutional hangups.
      Gun deaths will absolutely plummet. Lives will be saved.
      But sure, lets not do that because the rich yada yada yada.

      • Arbiter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yes, let’s further consolidate power for the rich, give them even more tools for oppression.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          In exchange for thousands of lives? Thats an easy trade.
          We can use other, far more effective means, to limit the power of the rich.
          The power of the rich doesn’t even have anything to do with their access to bullets anyway.

          • Jax@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            Those thousands of lives will be consumed by the rich, they don’t need guns to accomplish this.

            Those thousands need guns because it’s the only way to stop the rich.

          • lightnsfw
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            What effective means do they have against the rich?

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Since when do the rich use guns for oppression?

          They use money, not guns.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Except that bullets are a hell of a lot easier to make than guns are. Black market bullets would be rampant and it would be difficult to do anything about it.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Black market bullets would also be very expensive.
          Why sell them for 1$ when the alternative legal option is $5K?
          They’d sell for something like $4K, because why not?

          • SeaJ@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            That’s not how supply cost and pricing work. Basically it would be cost of material + cost of capital spread out over life of equipment + labor costs + cost of being caught multiplied by risk of being caught + a profit margin. The risk of being caught would likely be pretty damn low so you might increase their cost by 25-50% if you’re lucky but it sure as hell will be nowhere near $4000. Demand would be different but likely not enough to matter much.