I’m not putting this in great debates 'cuz I want opinions on this. I (and several other pro-gunners on the board) have been critical of many gun control laws for a long time mostly because their proponents cannot offer evidence that the law would do any good.
Basically, the article states that the CDC “doesn’t know”… admittedly, it reads like an Onion article. BUT, what I’m wondering… should we enact legislation if we have no idea how that legislation will impact the population? Is it a good precedent to adopt a “try anything and see what works” attitude with our laws? Or should we rather require that a proposal provide evidence that it addresses a problem?
Frankly, I think that if the government can’t determine if a law is effective, that law should be rescinded until it can make the determination. The burden of effectiveness is on the lawmaker, after all… what point is there in creating useless legislation? And how come gun owners need to justify keeping their guns when lawmakers don’t need to justify taking them away?
I did find one really hilarious thing in the article:
Typical denial on his part…