Maybe you might want to research your point and actually provide some evidence.
No, not really. The anti-rightsists argue for stricter gun control, more laws regulating guns, more restrictions on what guns can be bought, sold, etc. ... Such things require the writing of laws, the debating of laws, the passing of laws, the passing of laws again, the approval of laws, and the enforcement of laws, (sometimes the reviewing of laws and the amending of laws, etc). All of those things require money, time, etc.. This money, time, etc. is a cost, a resource cost. It is money, time, etc. that could be spent on many trillions of other things. As someone proposing stricter gun control, it is up to
anti-rightsists to show how the expenditure of such resources is a cost worth the end benefit.
The first step is to show that there is a benefit. The next step is to measure the benefit. The third step is to measure the cost. And the final step is to subtract Cost from Benefit and hope that your result is positive
, i.e., that there is a net gain in benefit.
Now, this is what the pro-gun-banners must do. All I must do is sit back and show where they are wrong. As the good attorneys always say: the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Well, I burden thee! Present thy proofs or rest thy case! So far, the only evidence presented has been RAZD's mockery of sanity with his reference to firearms deaths. And, as I promised, I showed it was ridiculous, irrelevant, silly, goofy, disingenuous, foolish, and above all unsupporting.
The argument by Legend has been that guns discourage crime. I think that has been totally debunked.
I am not Legend... forget that not.
[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin