Really, you have seen no argument against regulating function of new guns? No lower capacity magazines, no semi-auto features, no gun grip on semi auto rifles, bump stocks, etc...? And yes, the whole point is that it's for new sales, no one is stupid enough to think emission regulation should be applied to old cars.
Regulating the accessory of the gun isn't regulating the manufacture of the gun. Your argument was about emissions. Emissions are regulated through forcing car manufacturers to change manufacturing. Your argument wasn't an apples to apples comparison, you were just trying to be snarky. Unfortunately for you, I don't care about the snark and am just looking for a solution. You cannot regulate gun safety through the restriction of something already in mass circulation and capable of being 3D printed at will. You can put a law in place, but that doesn't mean the law will have any effect whatsoever.
However, if what you want to do is create gun laws and are less concerned with actually increasing safety, maybe that is your end. For me, it's about increasing safety and saving lives. Magazine restrictions don't save lives. And what is "no gun grip" on semi auto rifles. Do you even know what you are talking about here?
The point I'm making on the Columbine reference is that "it would take a long time so let's not do it" argument is stupid. You're right, I have no idea what strict gun control would have done to that chart. But one can surmise making things harder to obtain would dampen ownership. Something that's been true of pretty much every other good for sale in the history of mankind.
Making things harder to obtain if they aren't already obtained does work. But only if people don't already have them or aren't capable of getting them easily in some other fashion. Try banning ball point pens and see how far that gets you.
No, you're being stupid, I never said anything about people inside the wall or guns in circulation, you did. Tell me something, if I want a gun, am I a gun owner? The point I'm making is exactly on new gun sales. That has been obvious from the very first post on my wall comment. You can either agree a wall is effective for newcomers and as such stricter gun legislation is effective on new gun owners, OR you can admit a wall is stupid because people will bypass it, as someone who really wants a gun will bypass gun regulation. You can't have it both ways.
You tried making a comparison (again, you were more interested in snark) with this original comment:
Which is why walls don't work
as an answer to me saying that banning extended magazines won't work. I then stated that walls only work when someone isn't already inside what you are trying to wall in. If they are already inside, then walling in the object doesn't work - which should be obvious to anyone with a brain, right? People in your house? Locking your door doesn't help. People outside? Locking the door helps. Common sense.
You then went snarky here:
Oh, so preventing people from having access to something works then? Glad we're in agreement.
And again missed the point that preventing people from access works only if they don't already have the item you are trying to ban, or have alternative easy access around your ban. Again, to use the house analogy, if you lock the front door and people are outside the house, it works. But if they can still get in the back door it doesn't work.
Duh!!