"It" has arisen

JuanCarlos wrote:

Maybe somebody could help me out, because I've yet to live somewhere that requires them. But what, exactly, is the purpose of the waiting period and how does it prevent the mentally ill or violent from getting a gun? Do additional, more in-depth checks than the instant NICS check that they run up here occur?

I guess if the waiting period is used for more extensive background checks then it makes a little bit of sense (though I still don't agree with it). But I was always under the impression that it's basically the same instant check you get anywhere else, then they just make you wait a week for no real reason at all.

I'm failing to see any actual utility in such a restriction.


The only real purpose of a waiting period was to inject as much hassle into the purchase of a gun as possible with the hopes that fewer law abiding citizens would subject themselves to such hassle and just forget about purchasing a firearm. That way, in the eyes of the gun haters, we'd eventually end up with fewer "guns on the streets". I've spent a lot of time on the streets and have yet to just find a gun on the street. :rolleyes:

Waiting periods were sold to us at one time as "cooling off periods". This meant that when joe average law abiding finally snapped and decided to murder someone, he'd have to wait to get the gun. This cooling off period would give him time to reflect on whether it was really a good idea to shoot someone dead, with the hopes that he'd eventually come to his senses, before the waiting period had expired of course, and drop his murder plans.

Sound silly. You betcha. Plus, most people who murder someone in the heat of an arguement, with a gun, already have the gun, but those murders are few and far between in the aggregate murder numbers. Plus, there's always the kitchen knife set which never has a waiting period. It was doomed to fail as a murder reducing scheme. Most of its proponents probably knew that, but "felt" that they had to "try" something.
 
I fail to understand how retarded people can write letters so well.

No tool has ever killed a human of its own will. (a weapon being a tool)
It makes for good reading in Stephen King novels, but it isn't reality.
People kill people. Accidentally or otherwise.

Outlawing a tool just removes a citizens ability to defend themselves from criminal acts.

Someone here said it better but...
Laws do not apply to criminals.
Because the shear nature of being a criminal is to ignore the law.

Anyone who refuses to understand that simple circle..... IS RETARDED.
In this case, Associate Editor Susan Nielsen, is retarded.
 
Outlawing a tool just removes a citizens ability to defend themselves from criminal acts.

Someone here said it better but...
Laws do not apply to criminals.
Because the shear nature of being a criminal is to ignore the law.

True, but if you outlaw guns you can make them uncommon enough that they actually do become fairly difficult or risky to get...and many or most criminals won't bother. Arguing that removing the hojillion guns that are in people's nightstands won't make it at least a wee bit harder for criminals to find one is just as dishonest as arguing that passing a law against concealed carry will keep criminals from carrying concealed.

That said, I'm not sure that getting stabbed instead of shot is really worth the trade-off.
 
Juan, you get my point exactly.

The Second Amendment, was meant to override any ban on arms.
That alone resolves any argument they mention.
(Besides, I live in Texas. There is a huge black market already here.)

But to think of us as retarded as she, is mind numbing.
As if a lack of firearms would have prevented the violence.
Smart enough to be an Editor. Dumb enough to believe her own babble, over common sense.

To be honest, she reminds me of another famous mentality. Charles Manson.
 
Back
Top