|
In order to prove effectiveness, folks should in theory be able to show a massive decrease in guns used in crimes by felons and mentally incompetent folks since 1968. If that data existed, antis would be quoting it left and right. After 45 years, if they can't cite such results, then I wonder what Alabama Shooter et al use to justify their position aside from unsupported theory?
They want us to give up something concrete: restrictions on federal infringement of our Second Amendment rights, which is exactly what the proposed, universal checks would be - a further infringement. They should at a minimum provide hard, cold fact showing that previous infringements had a measurably positive impact.
So far, they either cannot, or choose not to.
Supporting increased restrictions without providing any evidence of benefit is anti in character. If you think that is an insult, Alabama Shooter, then you have not paid much attention to anti tactics of the last several decades.
And, since you still haven't bothered to provide any factual basis for the benefits of increased federal regulation, I don't quite see how you think you are winning any argument.
manta49, you are incorrect in assuming all Americans must have background checks in order to carry. Several of our states have constitutional carry (no license required). In some cases, that may be restricted to either open carry or concealed carry; in some cases either mode is ok without a license.
|