E.g. abortion rights, anti-LGBTQ, contempt for atheism, Christian nationalism, etc.

    • GospelofJohnny@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m not an expert by any means, but I want to say that something similar happened in Australia. Basically, they gave everyone the deal of, say, $500 per gun if turned in voluntarily, or seizure and no money if found. Then they simply restricted ammo sales and eventually the problem fixed itself. (Source: my ass)

      • Delphia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        You’re pretty much right. The big difference is that gun ownership in Australia was never widespread. America literally CANNOT afford to do a buyback.

        I’ve broken down the numbers here and on Reddit before and I always get downvoted to hell and back so I cant be fucked. But if every last American just gave their guns back, at an average buyback price of $1000 per gun you’re looking at 332 Billion dollars. Thats before you add the other costs like collection, destruction and disposal.

        Not even coming close to mentioning the costs involved in handling the “Cold dead hands” crowd, the preppers, the militias and the illegal unregistered firearms.

        Aaaaand the destruction of a vast multi billion dollar a year peripheral industry of shooting ranges, gun stores, accessory manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers.

        In short, while America needs to do SOMETHING the “Just ban guns” crowd are infuriating in their naivety.

        • Avanera@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          The federal government spent something like 6 Trillion Dollars last year, meaning the cost would be about 6% of our national budget. Knocking off 1/3rd for the people who would refuse to participate, 4%. If the process happened over 5 years, you’re talking about <1% increase to our annual budget. And practically speaking, 15 years might be a more reasonable time frame simply given the enormous scale of the thing.

          Sure, $332b is an absolute fuck-ton of money. But it’s not an inconceivable amount of money. That’s not to say we should do it, simply that the argument we can’t afford it doesn’t really check out.

          • Delphia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Like I said, Ive broken down the numbers much more comprehensively before and it always results in arguments that I cant be fucked getting involved in on social media, last time I did it it was effectively a research paper. Its napkin math but you’re right, the U.S COULD afford it hypothetically, but it would take a literally unbelievable culture shift in the way 100% of the country sees guns to make it possible.

            To get what I think I estimated out to 1.5 trillion over 5 years out of a federal government that cant agree on budgets to pay federal workers for a policy that effectively 50% of the population will be highly opposed to and many will actively and violently resist…

        • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not with that attitude ;-)

          You can if you want to, but I bet the problem is more “cultural”, so a shift in people is needed. Like make it illegal to make publicity about it for under 21 yo. And show the grim aftermath in stores selling guns. Then no publicity at all and so on. Tax guvs and bullets, educate people.

          We did it with cigarettes, and it worked out really well IMO. Today cigarettes are not “cool” anymore and usage has been falling sharp.

          • Delphia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Oh the problem is DEFINITELY cultural. My beef isnt with the idea of gun control its with people saying “Just ban them” like theres anything simple about it.

            A buyback of 393 million firearms if everyone lined up and handed them in in an orderly and peaceful fashion likely costing at minimum half a trillion dollars is just a starting point. Thats assuming 100% of the population, lawmakers, lobbyists and the entire firearms industry just goes “Awwwwww… Okaaaaay” like a 5yo who has just been told its time to stop playing and come in for dinner.

            • pufferfischerpulver@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              11 months ago

              Maybe there could be a program where the guns aren’t just bought back but resold in conflict areas around the world. Think the middle east or select parts of the African continent. There’s always someone to support with some discounted small arms am I right?

              How about 332 billion worth of small arms to Israel (worth at least double with all the sick optics and flashlighs). That’s a steal and I’m sure Congress could find it in the budget. Hamas would have no chance against some blinged out ARs.

              • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                The point is to destroy the guns, not hand them over to people that want to use them to kill each other…wtf.

        • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          In short, while America needs to do SOMETHING the “Just ban guns” crowd are infuriating in their naivety.

          As someone that is firmly against the free access to guns I cannot agree that it is naivety.

          You guys got a serious problem with gun violence, your children are dying in, quite frankly, absurd numbers.
          And you keep on letting it happen for decades now.

          I am not someone that says just banning the ownership of guns outright from one second to another is the best solution there is. Off course it’s not.

          But dude, even that strawman solution that pretty much noone actually proposes would be better than your status quo.

          • redballooon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            “Just ban guns” is the slogan for demonstrations. Any politician who is elected for doing that will obviously need to have a better plan. Usually such plans don’t fit on a poster.

          • Delphia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Im not American, I’m Australian. I have problems with anyone that wants to run around screaming for solutions that are impossible to implement. It might come from a good place but its just virtue signalling. That goes for people on both sides of any argument, the only thing it does is detracts from any meaningful dialogue on actual solutions.

            The gun problem in the U.S is way more cultural than financial, but even if you take all the culture and set it aside like it isnt the core of the issue even the basic numbers of doing a buyback and compensating every person and industry now out of work becomes an insane number very quickly.

            • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’s such a stupid take, I am not even sure where to start responding.

              Of the many, many, many things one might reply I will just pick the simple facts that a sugary drink alone doesn’t kill anyone and cars have a real and tangible use to our society, while selling murder-tools at Walmart does not.

              And btw I am very much in favor of measures to reduce the damages caused by the sugar industry and putting strict restrictions on dangerous traffic.

              • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                11 months ago

                So, you agree with me in the last paragraph, but called me stupid first? Get away from that reddit mentality, friend.

                Cars are not useful to society, though, they are actively harmful. They create sprawl and discourage walkability, pollute with participate as well as light and sound, and as we were discussing, are the leading cause if death for children in the US. Cars are useful only to individuals, at the expense of wider society.

                • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  So, you agree with me in the last paragraph, but called me stupid first? Get away from that reddit mentality, friend.

                  Cars are not useful to society, though, they are actively harmful

                  Holy shit you’re not just stupid you’re straight brain-dead.

    • redballooon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Civilian disarmamends happened in various countries, i.e. Australia in 1996/97, UK after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, Japan post WW2, South Africa in 2000, Colombia in 2000 and 2016, New Zealand after Christchurch.

      Strategies and success vary, but it’s not unheard of.

      • kofe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        You can still own guns in Australia, at least. It just requires applying for permits. I don’t get why people would be opposed to that

        • KroninJ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          From the mouth of my dad “you’ll be in a list and they’ll know you have guns. I shouldn’t have to register for a right that’s in the constitution”

          There’s a ton wrong with that statement, but he’s willfully blind to any of it. He hung up on me when I pointed out all the issues that statement had XD

      • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Did you even read his comment?

        Australia did no such thing.

        Australia implemented significant gun control measures in response to a mass shooting in 1996. The Port Arthur massacre, where 35 people were killed and 23 wounded, prompted the government to take action. The key steps included:

        1. National Firearms Agreement (NFA): The Australian government, along with states and territories, agreed on a comprehensive set of gun control measures known as the National Firearms Agreement. This agreement aimed to standardize gun laws across the country.

        2. Buyback Program: A major component of the NFA was a nationwide gun buyback program. The government bought back and destroyed over 600,000 firearms, reducing the number of guns in circulation.

        3. Tightened Regulations: The NFA introduced stricter regulations on firearm ownership, including mandatory registration, background checks, and waiting periods. It also restricted the sale of certain types of firearms, such as semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

        4. Licensing and Training: The licensing process for obtaining a firearm was made more rigorous, involving thorough background checks and a genuine reason for owning a firearm. Additionally, there was an emphasis on training for gun owners.

        5. Uniform Laws: Ensuring consistency in gun laws across different states and territories helped prevent loopholes and made it more challenging for individuals to circumvent regulations.

        As a result of these measures, Australia experienced a significant decline in gun-related deaths and mass shootings. The success of Australia’s gun control efforts is often cited in discussions about addressing gun violence in other countries.

        Australia did not simply “take the guns away” without compensation or throw anyone in jail for not turning them over. The gun control measures implemented in Australia, particularly after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, included a buyback program. This program involved the government purchasing privately owned firearms from citizens, and it was a key component of the National Firearms Agreement (NFA).

        During the buyback, individuals were offered compensation for surrendering their firearms voluntarily. The government provided funds to compensate gun owners for the market value of the firearms that were handed in. This approach aimed to encourage compliance with the new regulations while respecting the property rights of gun owners.

        The buyback was a significant and intentional part of Australia’s strategy to reduce the number of firearms in circulation and enhance public safety through a combination of stricter regulations, uniform laws, and the removal of certain types of firearms from private ownership.