• WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    So, you’re concerned about universal background checks affecting private sales? The whole point is to prevent dangerous individuals from using these loopholes to buy guns. Your argument is basically defending a system that lets people bypass regulations using airy justifications even though it’s exactly why universal checks are necessary.

    Your claim about potential abuse from a “computer security perspective” is just weak. There’s no concrete evidence that this would be a serious, unsolvable issue. We handle sensitive data in far more complex systems, so throwing out vague concerns isn’t a valid argument. It’s just a way to avoid real engagement.

    And your SCOTUS speculation? It’s a distraction. Sure, legal challenges might come up, but that doesn’t erase the fact that 86% of Americans want universal background checks. Hiding behind hypothetical court rulings doesn’t change the overwhelming public support.

    Your entire response relies on hypothetical fears, speculative legal scenarios, and flimsy concerns about private sales. It’s laughable that you can be so incredibly far off the mark about actual opinions of Americans on these topics while simultaneously claiming to speak for them. But none of it holds up against the simple fact that most Americans—across party lines—support stronger background checks and more gun control. You’re flailing to avoid engaging with the data, and it’s not working.

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      The whole point is to prevent dangerous individuals from using these loopholes to buy guns.

      Dangerous individuals largely aren’t using this loophole to buy guns. That’s part of the problem.

      The only gun control that might have a chance at stopping gun crime is a total civilian ban and that requires an Amendment.