Five day waiting period for cars?
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
I don't really think that anyone's is going to be pushing for a waiting period on car sales at the congressional level. The reason we have the period for guns and not cars is because while guns are a basic tool with the basic purpose of causing injury, cars are simply modes of transportation. The fact that both can be abused in the wrong hands, though a sad fact of life, doesn't change the fact that the two have different basic uses.
What does "basic purpose" have to do with the legitimacy of waiting periods?
Guns have a basic purpose of causing injury, but not necessarily unjustly and not necessarily to humans. Using a firearm to injure someone unnecessarily is just the same as using a car to get from one place to another... when there happen to be people in the way.
Why is "causing injury" something totally different than "driving from one place to another?" Injury with firearms isn't necessarily injury in a moral sense. And how many people do you injure through pollution by driving your car?
Who determines what items with what "basic uses" deserve regulation, and on what basis?
Guns have a basic purpose of causing injury, but not necessarily unjustly and not necessarily to humans. Using a firearm to injure someone unnecessarily is just the same as using a car to get from one place to another... when there happen to be people in the way.
Why is "causing injury" something totally different than "driving from one place to another?" Injury with firearms isn't necessarily injury in a moral sense. And how many people do you injure through pollution by driving your car?
Who determines what items with what "basic uses" deserve regulation, and on what basis?
You know I read your post Tyme, then re-read mine. And after going over them a few times, I realized that my way of thinking on the subject was indeed flawed. Basic purpose of something doesn't really matter when it comes to why it's used the way it is. But I suspect that anti-gunners follow the same reasoning I was using, only in a more deceptive and legally professional way. This is probably what I should have posted.
The more I try to come up with a decent creditable argument why guns are more dangerous than cars as to require a waiting period, the more it doesn't hash out in my mind. The fact is both can be used as weapons. They can be used as weapons on anyone or anything, from humans to animals to property.
In this country to date though, we have established waiting periods for guns because they are used to harm or injure humans in a malevolent fashion more than anything else. And though they can be used on anyone or anything, human life is obviously valued more than animal or property. Cars cause more deaths than guns a year or so I've heard, but mostly in an accident situation. Whereas deaths from guns, both intentional and accidental, are far fewer. Again this is how I understand it. I don't have any links to statistical analysis but I'm sure they can be found easily enough. I think it's farely rare to hear of someone intentionaly using a vehicle against another person. And I do believe that most intentional assaults or deaths are committed with guns. Since guns seem to be the choice weapon of criminals, politicians decided making responsible people wait to buy one would stop it. This train of thought is obviously flawed but that's why guns have a waiting period and cars don't.
You could also argue though, that the process of applying for a driver's license is thought to be enough protection against the wrong people getting behind the wheel. This thinking is also flawed because most drunk drivers drive whether they have a license or not. The whole effect of waiting periods is pretty much non-existent. Since only some of the population have firearms, as opposed to most of the population having cars, they are thought to be more dangerous than cars. Again, this is backwards thinking by types like feinstein and clinton.
Right now, the way the system is setup, makes the whole waiting period issue irrelevant. Waiting periods are simply to see if the SSN associated with the sale has any outstanding warrants or not. It doesn't verify whether or not the person assigned to that number has a record or whether they are even alive or not. At least that's the way it was setup last I knew.
In regard to the article, there's too many variables involved to tell whether or not a waiting period for cars would have stopped this guy from running these people down. Was he always depressed? Was it obvious when he was? Did he just buy the car? Did he steal it? Did he own it? If so, how long had he had it? Although, it seems strange to me that if he was depressed, he wouldn't be smiling and running people over. He'd be moping around and probably suicidal. So maybe more than depression was a factor here. Is it easier to obtain a car rather than a gun based on the difference in price? What financial situation was he in? Would it have been easier for him to get a gun rather than a car? Probably not since you can easily steal one or the other. There's just too many holes in this case that a simple waiting period wouldn't plug up.
The more I try to come up with a decent creditable argument why guns are more dangerous than cars as to require a waiting period, the more it doesn't hash out in my mind. The fact is both can be used as weapons. They can be used as weapons on anyone or anything, from humans to animals to property.
In this country to date though, we have established waiting periods for guns because they are used to harm or injure humans in a malevolent fashion more than anything else. And though they can be used on anyone or anything, human life is obviously valued more than animal or property. Cars cause more deaths than guns a year or so I've heard, but mostly in an accident situation. Whereas deaths from guns, both intentional and accidental, are far fewer. Again this is how I understand it. I don't have any links to statistical analysis but I'm sure they can be found easily enough. I think it's farely rare to hear of someone intentionaly using a vehicle against another person. And I do believe that most intentional assaults or deaths are committed with guns. Since guns seem to be the choice weapon of criminals, politicians decided making responsible people wait to buy one would stop it. This train of thought is obviously flawed but that's why guns have a waiting period and cars don't.
You could also argue though, that the process of applying for a driver's license is thought to be enough protection against the wrong people getting behind the wheel. This thinking is also flawed because most drunk drivers drive whether they have a license or not. The whole effect of waiting periods is pretty much non-existent. Since only some of the population have firearms, as opposed to most of the population having cars, they are thought to be more dangerous than cars. Again, this is backwards thinking by types like feinstein and clinton.
Right now, the way the system is setup, makes the whole waiting period issue irrelevant. Waiting periods are simply to see if the SSN associated with the sale has any outstanding warrants or not. It doesn't verify whether or not the person assigned to that number has a record or whether they are even alive or not. At least that's the way it was setup last I knew.
In regard to the article, there's too many variables involved to tell whether or not a waiting period for cars would have stopped this guy from running these people down. Was he always depressed? Was it obvious when he was? Did he just buy the car? Did he steal it? Did he own it? If so, how long had he had it? Although, it seems strange to me that if he was depressed, he wouldn't be smiling and running people over. He'd be moping around and probably suicidal. So maybe more than depression was a factor here. Is it easier to obtain a car rather than a gun based on the difference in price? What financial situation was he in? Would it have been easier for him to get a gun rather than a car? Probably not since you can easily steal one or the other. There's just too many holes in this case that a simple waiting period wouldn't plug up.
Last edited:
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Mr. ShadowLaw-
I don't think Jim was being serious with the "5 Day Waiting Period" title as it concerns autos. He was making a point about the absurdity of it where it concerns firearms.
While your comments about automobile waiting period are quite insightful, and the icon at the end of every statement is quite fetching, let's talk about the firearms waiting period. I think that's what this thread is about. OK?
Rich
I don't think Jim was being serious with the "5 Day Waiting Period" title as it concerns autos. He was making a point about the absurdity of it where it concerns firearms.
While your comments about automobile waiting period are quite insightful, and the
icon at the end of every statement is quite fetching, let's talk about the firearms waiting period. I think that's what this thread is about. OK?Rich
Rich is correct when he states I was being ludicrous about an automobile waiting period. It will never happen no matter how many cars are used to commit suicide by running into the nearest bridge abutment or to mow down innocent pedestrians.
The purported purpose of waiting periods was to prevent the "crime of passion" murders wherein the perp would be denied the ability to access a firearm immediately.
The waiting period in CA did not stop the murder rate from escalating over the years after its inception; and it has not had any effect on the murder rate on the national level. All it has accomplished is to cause murderers to find alternative methods.
Colin Ferguson, the "Long Island Railway Shooter", purchased the firearm he used in the attack months prior to the attack. The evidence showed that he had planned the attack for as much as a year prior.
When Ferguson purchased the firearm, he had to wait fifteen days by state law before the firearm could be released to him. What is not widely known is that the store where he bought the firearm had a store policy of adding one more day to the waiting period. This means that Ferguson waited sixteen days to take possession of the firearm.
That certainly must have put a real fly in the ointment for a man who waited seven more months before attacking innocents on a train.
The fact is that the deaths caused by automobiles, regardless of the steps taken to make them safer, have not decreased. The other fact is that the deaths caused by automobiles are considered "acceptable losses".
You can buy a car at any age.
You can own a car at any age.
You can operate a car at any age on your own private property.
There is no waiting period to buy a car.
There is no limit on the number you can buy in a given period of time.
There is no requirement that the car be kept in a locked garage with the wheels removed.
You can buy a car from any source, including car shows, dealers, and private parties.
There is no background check to buy a car. A person who has been conviced of DUI resulting in death can purchase a car upon their release from prison for their felony conviction.
Yet cars can be used to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible time by simply driving it on a crowded sidewalk.
Waiting periods are, and shall remain, a joke.
The purported purpose of waiting periods was to prevent the "crime of passion" murders wherein the perp would be denied the ability to access a firearm immediately.
The waiting period in CA did not stop the murder rate from escalating over the years after its inception; and it has not had any effect on the murder rate on the national level. All it has accomplished is to cause murderers to find alternative methods.
Colin Ferguson, the "Long Island Railway Shooter", purchased the firearm he used in the attack months prior to the attack. The evidence showed that he had planned the attack for as much as a year prior.
When Ferguson purchased the firearm, he had to wait fifteen days by state law before the firearm could be released to him. What is not widely known is that the store where he bought the firearm had a store policy of adding one more day to the waiting period. This means that Ferguson waited sixteen days to take possession of the firearm.
That certainly must have put a real fly in the ointment for a man who waited seven more months before attacking innocents on a train.
The fact is that the deaths caused by automobiles, regardless of the steps taken to make them safer, have not decreased. The other fact is that the deaths caused by automobiles are considered "acceptable losses".
You can buy a car at any age.
You can own a car at any age.
You can operate a car at any age on your own private property.
There is no waiting period to buy a car.
There is no limit on the number you can buy in a given period of time.
There is no requirement that the car be kept in a locked garage with the wheels removed.
You can buy a car from any source, including car shows, dealers, and private parties.
There is no background check to buy a car. A person who has been conviced of DUI resulting in death can purchase a car upon their release from prison for their felony conviction.
Yet cars can be used to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible time by simply driving it on a crowded sidewalk.
Waiting periods are, and shall remain, a joke.
Well I'm sorry if I commented on the topic wrong. Who was suggesting that a waiting period for cars be established? I didn't see anything but a question in the subject line to suggest what exact direction the thread was supposed to go. Nor was there any original text by the OP.
But yeah, waiting periods don't really seem to make much sense in any regard. Other than making people wait a little longer for a gun, whatever their intentions, doesn't seem to be a very good deterent to crime.
I admitted as much in the last post I made, in which I said that Tyme's comments helped me realize that my original thoughts on the subject were incorrect.
But yeah, waiting periods don't really seem to make much sense in any regard. Other than making people wait a little longer for a gun, whatever their intentions, doesn't seem to be a very good deterent to crime.
I admitted as much in the last post I made, in which I said that Tyme's comments helped me realize that my original thoughts on the subject were incorrect.
Last edited:
I was out of town a few weeks ago
and my wife called me asking where the paint, roller and tray was. I told her where I thought the stuff was but if not go to the hardware store and by somemore. She had a project she wanted to do. Well she got frustrated because she could not find the stuff in my mess so went down to the "motor mile' as the call it in our town, and picked up a new toy...
5 day waiting period could have been a good thing... where are laws when you need them.
It's a Porshe Boxter by the way.... they don't come cheap.
and my wife called me asking where the paint, roller and tray was. I told her where I thought the stuff was but if not go to the hardware store and by somemore. She had a project she wanted to do. Well she got frustrated because she could not find the stuff in my mess so went down to the "motor mile' as the call it in our town, and picked up a new toy...
5 day waiting period could have been a good thing... where are laws when you need them.
It's a Porshe Boxter by the way.... they don't come cheap.
Basic purpose
I take exception to the description of the basic purpose of as gun as a tool for causing injury. It is not. To state such, and blindly accept and repeat such statements, you have fallen into the first basic trap of the anti-gunner. You are identifying the object with an emotional description of a result of its use.
The basic purpose of a gun is to strike a target. The choice of target is dependant on the user. The basic purpose of a hammer is to strike a target. Most people choose nails, but many people have chosen other people's heads. The basic purpose of a knife is to cut. What you cut is up to the hand that wields the knife.
Every object made by man (and most in nature) can be used or misused to cause injury. According to one old story, a rock was the first murder weapon.
What is the basic purpose of a rock?
Guns are tools for striking objects at a distance with force. Period. Everything after that (injury, death, hole in a target, etc.) is a result of the intent of the user.
The basic purpose of your computer is to run programs. It can be used to chat here on TFL, or to play games, or thousands of other things. These are applications of the tool, not its basic purpose. You could also bash someone over the head with it. This would be another application.
One must take care with what one says, and how they say it. Words can be weapons too.
As to waiting periods for cars, it is an emotionally satisfying argument to equate cars and guns, because of the similarities, but sadly, it is not a praticularly good analogy because of the significant differences.
As has been stated, cars are just objects, upon which there are NO legal restictions, unless you intend to use one on a public highway. Then there are numerous legal restrictions. You have a Constitutional right to travel, but you do not have a Constitutional right to drive a car on a public road.
Indeed, there are many people who do not own cars at all. Their transportation needs are served by public and private (cabs) tranportation. I'm sure most of those people would have no problem with a waiting period for purchasing a car.
Some people would like to have guns treated like cars, and I admit, to a point, the idea has a certain appeal. However, there are too many problems with that approach for it to be acceptable to me. The first of which is our rights as enumerated in the Constitution. Then there is the whole licensing, registration, inspection, fees, and insurance thing. There is just too much potential for abuse.
The only way I could see it working (fairly) would be if ALL current gun laws were abolished (ain't gonna happen) and the new regulations (modeled after motor vehicle laws) were emplaced.
On the plus side, many onerous gun laws would be abolished. As one example, since you can own a race car (just can't drive it on the street), you could own full auto firearms.
On the down side, however, there are just so many things in motor vehicle regs that could go badly for us. For example, paying a fee every year, for each gun in ordrer to use it in public. Having to have liability insurance (with govt. set minimums on coverage), (hey, there's a whole new industry!
) having to have your guns pass government set "safety" standards, (like, maybe, size, mag capacity, barrel length, trigger pull, etc.) Having to pass an eye test (ok, maybe that's not so bad), and a host of other things.
How about felons? They can have drivers license.
Would carrying concealed be considered "driving at night without lights"? and be prohibited? Nope, just too many places where we would get burned, and not enough where we would benefit.
If it would be written (and enforced) the right way, I could support it. But it wouldn't be. So I don't. And neither should you.
I take exception to the description of the basic purpose of as gun as a tool for causing injury. It is not. To state such, and blindly accept and repeat such statements, you have fallen into the first basic trap of the anti-gunner. You are identifying the object with an emotional description of a result of its use.
The basic purpose of a gun is to strike a target. The choice of target is dependant on the user. The basic purpose of a hammer is to strike a target. Most people choose nails, but many people have chosen other people's heads. The basic purpose of a knife is to cut. What you cut is up to the hand that wields the knife.
Every object made by man (and most in nature) can be used or misused to cause injury. According to one old story, a rock was the first murder weapon.
What is the basic purpose of a rock?
Guns are tools for striking objects at a distance with force. Period. Everything after that (injury, death, hole in a target, etc.) is a result of the intent of the user.
The basic purpose of your computer is to run programs. It can be used to chat here on TFL, or to play games, or thousands of other things. These are applications of the tool, not its basic purpose. You could also bash someone over the head with it. This would be another application.
One must take care with what one says, and how they say it. Words can be weapons too.
As to waiting periods for cars, it is an emotionally satisfying argument to equate cars and guns, because of the similarities, but sadly, it is not a praticularly good analogy because of the significant differences.
As has been stated, cars are just objects, upon which there are NO legal restictions, unless you intend to use one on a public highway. Then there are numerous legal restrictions. You have a Constitutional right to travel, but you do not have a Constitutional right to drive a car on a public road.
Indeed, there are many people who do not own cars at all. Their transportation needs are served by public and private (cabs) tranportation. I'm sure most of those people would have no problem with a waiting period for purchasing a car.
Some people would like to have guns treated like cars, and I admit, to a point, the idea has a certain appeal. However, there are too many problems with that approach for it to be acceptable to me. The first of which is our rights as enumerated in the Constitution. Then there is the whole licensing, registration, inspection, fees, and insurance thing. There is just too much potential for abuse.
The only way I could see it working (fairly) would be if ALL current gun laws were abolished (ain't gonna happen) and the new regulations (modeled after motor vehicle laws) were emplaced.
On the plus side, many onerous gun laws would be abolished. As one example, since you can own a race car (just can't drive it on the street), you could own full auto firearms.
On the down side, however, there are just so many things in motor vehicle regs that could go badly for us. For example, paying a fee every year, for each gun in ordrer to use it in public. Having to have liability insurance (with govt. set minimums on coverage), (hey, there's a whole new industry!
) having to have your guns pass government set "safety" standards, (like, maybe, size, mag capacity, barrel length, trigger pull, etc.) Having to pass an eye test (ok, maybe that's not so bad), and a host of other things.How about felons? They can have drivers license.
Would carrying concealed be considered "driving at night without lights"? and be prohibited? Nope, just too many places where we would get burned, and not enough where we would benefit.
If it would be written (and enforced) the right way, I could support it. But it wouldn't be. So I don't. And neither should you.
Not trying to sidetrack this thread, just explaining my reasoning.
I was postulating the basic purpose theory to guns based on when and why they first came around. Not by what anti-gunners have come to label them due to their emotional effects on society.
First thing, yes, a rock can be used as a weapon. But man didn't invent the rock. And I agree, anything can be a potential weapon since it's up to the user to decide what that object's purpose at hand will be. That's what personal responsibility is all about.
But firearms were invented in the early 14th century for the sole purpose of being an advantage in war. I believe it was the chinese who first adapted their black powder invention to the art of warfare. First starting out with rifles, then eventually developing the first handheld cannons. I did some searches but couldn't find anything specifically stating it was the chinese. But that's how I remember it from history class. The first ones were simple metal hand cannons.
http://www.thehistorychannel.com/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=222519
http://www.historychannel.com/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=219348
They looked like a miniture black powder artillery cannons, ignited in the same way with a hot wire or ember. No moving parts, just cannon, powder, and ball. And while the technology has vastly improved over the centuries, the basic purpose has not. Guns are made to be weapons. They weren't invented with the thought in mind that if someone practiced enough, they could hit anything they pointed at. They were made with the purpose to bring about victory in armed combat. If their sole purpose today, was to strike targets, then making several different calibers, styles, and models would be pointless. The thousands of, "Which caliber is better?" threads on this site alone are good examples. Some calibers are good for hunting, some are good for self defense, some are good for warfare. And some are good for IDPA or other recreational purposes. But target shooting is only one of the many positive and negative applications of firearms.
Guns are one of many cases where the terms of weapon and tool are interchangeable. The application determines the term. But history explains that when black powder projectile weapons were invented, the intended application, at the time, was for warfare.
I don't think that this should really hurt the image of handguns though. Today they can be used for many positive things in life. The fact that some of us have taken potentially deadly weapons and utilized them in the preservation of life and for recreational sports should be, and is, a positive thing. And we shouldn't let the bad incidents over shadow that.
I was postulating the basic purpose theory to guns based on when and why they first came around. Not by what anti-gunners have come to label them due to their emotional effects on society.
First thing, yes, a rock can be used as a weapon. But man didn't invent the rock. And I agree, anything can be a potential weapon since it's up to the user to decide what that object's purpose at hand will be. That's what personal responsibility is all about.
But firearms were invented in the early 14th century for the sole purpose of being an advantage in war. I believe it was the chinese who first adapted their black powder invention to the art of warfare. First starting out with rifles, then eventually developing the first handheld cannons. I did some searches but couldn't find anything specifically stating it was the chinese. But that's how I remember it from history class. The first ones were simple metal hand cannons.
http://www.thehistorychannel.com/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=222519
http://www.historychannel.com/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=219348
They looked like a miniture black powder artillery cannons, ignited in the same way with a hot wire or ember. No moving parts, just cannon, powder, and ball. And while the technology has vastly improved over the centuries, the basic purpose has not. Guns are made to be weapons. They weren't invented with the thought in mind that if someone practiced enough, they could hit anything they pointed at. They were made with the purpose to bring about victory in armed combat. If their sole purpose today, was to strike targets, then making several different calibers, styles, and models would be pointless. The thousands of, "Which caliber is better?" threads on this site alone are good examples. Some calibers are good for hunting, some are good for self defense, some are good for warfare. And some are good for IDPA or other recreational purposes. But target shooting is only one of the many positive and negative applications of firearms.
Guns are one of many cases where the terms of weapon and tool are interchangeable. The application determines the term. But history explains that when black powder projectile weapons were invented, the intended application, at the time, was for warfare.
I don't think that this should really hurt the image of handguns though. Today they can be used for many positive things in life. The fact that some of us have taken potentially deadly weapons and utilized them in the preservation of life and for recreational sports should be, and is, a positive thing. And we shouldn't let the bad incidents over shadow that.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
When oh when will we learn that no one NEEDS more than a 5 horse Briggs & Stratton!?!
Well, the government regulation of cars has been mentioned in the way of licenses, decals, inspections and insurance. Isn't that way yet for guns. There is also the effect of the insurance industry itself, which has probably caused more changes in car design than the government.
Remember this also: if your only tool is a hammer, then you tend to see all your problems as nails. If your only tool is a gun, well?
Remember this also: if your only tool is a hammer, then you tend to see all your problems as nails. If your only tool is a gun, well?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Cowman-
Kewl. Would you like to know the Date, Time and IP Address of your post?
With today's government tools, it's easy enough to locate. They don't even need to ask my help.
Rich
Kewl. Would you like to know the Date, Time and IP Address of your post?
With today's government tools, it's easy enough to locate. They don't even need to ask my help.
Rich
invention_45
New member
Evidently, you've never driven in South Florida.
