Tom, I think we really need to be careful in presenting this argument as we will fall into the trap of making a case for registration (ie: we need better visibility in order gauge the effectiveness of our controls).
Not really. Like I said, we went for over 200 years without background checks. Society didn't crumble. There's no proof that the NICS system reduced crime.
As such, expanding it to cover everybody
results in huge outlays in terms of infrastructure. That means taxpayer money, and a lot of it. All that would be for naught if proponents have no proof it'll do any good.
And the burden of proof should be on those proposing it, not on us.
Though I have no idea
where they got this number, the anti-gun crowd is crowing that 40% of guns are purchased at gun shows without background checks. Let's accept that figure for the moment.
Less than 1%
of crime guns are acquired at gun shows, whereas 13% of crime guns are purchased at retailers. By that logic, the NICS system makes us less safe
OK, maybe that's a bit loopy (and a bit snarky, sue me), but I'm not seeing the problem
that universal checks are going to fix