I don't think a waiting period would have made a bit of difference in recent mass shootings. None of them went out and bought a gun on a whim and turned around & committed their atrocity.
The whole issue of gun violence is overblown and exploited by fearmongers. Since 2006, USA TODAY has tracked a total of 358 mass killings that have claimed the lives of 1,883 people. The cases include shootings, stabbings, fires and blunt-force attacks, among others, in 45 states and the District of Columbia.
This year 2120 men will be diagnosed with penile cancer in the US. So you have a greater chance of being diagnosed with penile cancer than to be killed in a mass shooting.
Waiting period tied to background checks would make a difference. The kid in Florida had known problems, so did the guy in Las Vegas. The Vegas background check should have flagged that he already had an arsenal and that should have triggered a visit from the ATF.
This is about common sense measures to enforce existing laws. Tell any man how to avoid penile cancer and I’m sure most would follow instructions.
Again, a waiting period wouldn't have made a bit of difference in either case. Background checks and waiting periods are two separate issues. Doesn't seem like much common sense if the problem really isn't as big of an problem as portrayed.
You need a waiting period to conduct a comprehensive background check, so it’s the same issue.
Any responsible gun owner understands that nobody should walk into a Walmart, show proof of age, answer 6-7 lame questions that are easily falsified, have a minimum wage clerk run your name through NCIC, and walk out with an AR15 within 15 minutes.
Granted that background checks need to be hardened, which would be helped by a waiting period.
While you may not see it as a big problem, the existing issue can be reduced with some common sense that doesn’t infringe on the 2nd amendment at all.
You want a gun, wave your HIPA rights for a start. You want a gun, your ownership limit is 10 long guns and 3 sidearms (unless you are a federally licensed collector/dealer).
Speak for yourself.
Not all responsible gun owners agree with you.
Teen drivers kill more people every year in the US than ar15's. Plus, Walmart doesn't sell AR15's.
You just said you want people to give up rights.
Where the hell do you come up with your magic numbers? Like 9 or 11 is going to matter?
I suppose to avoid penile cancer one could cut off one's penis as well.
I made those examples up. I didn’t say “all”, I said “any responsible”, but keep coming back with your own interpretations.
Or how about this: the 2nd amendment is supposed federal law that each state interprets as they see fit, even with challenges to the Supreme Court on both sides of the argument. Let’s create federal gun laws that are enforced equally by every state. How is a waiting period with background checks going to hurt any legal law abiding citizen?
Who the hell needs more than 10 long guns or 3 pistols anyway, for what?
And in your driving example cars are registered and those teens are supposedly licensed, but those same teens can get guns without jack training or a gun ownership license. It makes zero sense.
JSYK I’m a gun owner.
You said "any responsible" gun owner. Implying that one is not a responsible gun owner if they disagree.
What if I'm a rancher or farmer and I need a gun to protect my livestock from predators that have recently come in the area? One could come up plenty of arguments where a waiting period would cost in terms of safety or profits.
If you want to drag the fed gov into action don't be disappointed if they decide your state has to accept concealed carry permits from other states with little or no training. As for teen drivers...even with licensing they kill about 4500 people a year. If we are genuinely interested in saving lives we would increase the minimum age of drivers license to 21. I am not against raising the minimum age of a gun purchase to 18. Some states have no minimum at all. But again that becomes a states rights issue.
IIN to think people should stop blaming guns?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I don't think a waiting period would have made a bit of difference in recent mass shootings. None of them went out and bought a gun on a whim and turned around & committed their atrocity.
The whole issue of gun violence is overblown and exploited by fearmongers. Since 2006, USA TODAY has tracked a total of 358 mass killings that have claimed the lives of 1,883 people. The cases include shootings, stabbings, fires and blunt-force attacks, among others, in 45 states and the District of Columbia.
This year 2120 men will be diagnosed with penile cancer in the US. So you have a greater chance of being diagnosed with penile cancer than to be killed in a mass shooting.
--
[Old Memory]
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Waiting period tied to background checks would make a difference. The kid in Florida had known problems, so did the guy in Las Vegas. The Vegas background check should have flagged that he already had an arsenal and that should have triggered a visit from the ATF.
This is about common sense measures to enforce existing laws. Tell any man how to avoid penile cancer and I’m sure most would follow instructions.
--
CozmoWank
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Again, a waiting period wouldn't have made a bit of difference in either case. Background checks and waiting periods are two separate issues. Doesn't seem like much common sense if the problem really isn't as big of an problem as portrayed.
--
[Old Memory]
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You need a waiting period to conduct a comprehensive background check, so it’s the same issue.
Any responsible gun owner understands that nobody should walk into a Walmart, show proof of age, answer 6-7 lame questions that are easily falsified, have a minimum wage clerk run your name through NCIC, and walk out with an AR15 within 15 minutes.
Granted that background checks need to be hardened, which would be helped by a waiting period.
While you may not see it as a big problem, the existing issue can be reduced with some common sense that doesn’t infringe on the 2nd amendment at all.
You want a gun, wave your HIPA rights for a start. You want a gun, your ownership limit is 10 long guns and 3 sidearms (unless you are a federally licensed collector/dealer).
--
CozmoWank
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Speak for yourself.
Not all responsible gun owners agree with you.
Teen drivers kill more people every year in the US than ar15's. Plus, Walmart doesn't sell AR15's.
You just said you want people to give up rights.
Where the hell do you come up with your magic numbers? Like 9 or 11 is going to matter?
I suppose to avoid penile cancer one could cut off one's penis as well.
--
[Old Memory]
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I made those examples up. I didn’t say “all”, I said “any responsible”, but keep coming back with your own interpretations.
Or how about this: the 2nd amendment is supposed federal law that each state interprets as they see fit, even with challenges to the Supreme Court on both sides of the argument. Let’s create federal gun laws that are enforced equally by every state. How is a waiting period with background checks going to hurt any legal law abiding citizen?
Who the hell needs more than 10 long guns or 3 pistols anyway, for what?
And in your driving example cars are registered and those teens are supposedly licensed, but those same teens can get guns without jack training or a gun ownership license. It makes zero sense.
JSYK I’m a gun owner.
--
CozmoWank
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
You said "any responsible" gun owner. Implying that one is not a responsible gun owner if they disagree.
What if I'm a rancher or farmer and I need a gun to protect my livestock from predators that have recently come in the area? One could come up plenty of arguments where a waiting period would cost in terms of safety or profits.
If you want to drag the fed gov into action don't be disappointed if they decide your state has to accept concealed carry permits from other states with little or no training. As for teen drivers...even with licensing they kill about 4500 people a year. If we are genuinely interested in saving lives we would increase the minimum age of drivers license to 21. I am not against raising the minimum age of a gun purchase to 18. Some states have no minimum at all. But again that becomes a states rights issue.