it seems the only argument the pro-gun side seems to be able to muster is "it wouldn't 100% work, so there's no point even trying"

That's not what I said at all, what I said was focusing on our citizens well-being will have a much greater impact on gun violence than trying to ban guns.

do you agree with charlie kirk, it's worth having a few (tens of thousand) deaths a year to be able "protect your god given rights"? (makes perfect sense, if you don't think about it)

12-13k people die a year from drunk driving deaths per year, nearly as many as all gun homicides combined (sans suicides which make up 2/3rds of gun deaths). So by your logic, we should ban alcohol and that's the best approach.

Also trying to use that piece of racist shit as a "gotcha" on gun rights is pretty weak, you gonna also toss out that hitler liked bread so I must agree with him too right?

the onion title is not "funny" imo, it's upsetting and true, which is kind of a black comedy when you see people genuinely argue for it

I argue for it, because people like you suggest that the dems use political capital to try and push more gun control when it has very little support, instead of trying to actually solve our societies problems that would have much greater effect on gun violence.

nobody is talking about prohibition, "just" regulation, but also guns are nothing like alcohol or heavy drugs even

Nearly 4Xs the number of people die via alcohol consumption (178k on average) per year than all gun deaths combined. That's not even adding in drugs. So you don't really care about deaths. Just how they die.

And yes, you aren't suggesting regulation, you're suggesting a ban, because that's what a buy back effectively is.