• Waiting periods were tried during the early days of the Brady Bill as the National Instant Check System (NICS) was being set up. It didn't work. People who wanted to commit a crime of passion found other ways to inflict serious bodily injury or death. Psych tests are unreliable at best, mainly due to differing interpretations between mental health practitioners and the ever-changing (and sometimes expanding) criteria for mental disorder diagnosis. An example is autism. This condition was re-indexed about 10 years ago to add a whole slew of behaviors and tendencies. As a result, autism diagnosis have spiked to record levels. I think that neither handguns or shotguns should have waiting periods. I do think that NICS needs to be expanded and upgraed to allow private citizens to access the system when they want to sell their firearms (currently only FFL 01 dealers can use the system) BUT in exchange for this, the citizen who uses NICS to transfer a firearm gets indemnified by the US Government against misuse of the firearm by the buyer or anyone who gets it after it passes from the seller's possession.
    • mushroom
      It's nice to think that a voluntary system would help prevent misuse, but the only people who would follow through are already responsible gun owners. Private sales/shows are the problem. When you buy a car, you have to register it. How can it be policed?
  • People can easily manipulate personality tests being administered by gun shop owners. These tests work best when given by a certified medical professionals to people who answer truthfully. How long until the "correct" answers were all over the Internet? Any why should people who give the wrong answers be prevented from using their Second Amendment rights? Look up some of these tests and you'll see that the questions are pretty iffy sometimes and do not present a clear case for barring gun ownership.
  • I would say... that if someone is going to buy guns they MUST have someway to interview the guy or gals friends, family, teachers to see what THIER opinions are about the persons attitude & mentality... That MIGHt be one way to curb crazies from getting guns legally....
  • i think today's interpretation of the second amendment of the constitution is sickening. it impinges on the declaration of independence which was supposedly designed to guarantee life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for everyone in this country. all the thousands upon thousands of gun victims in this country were denied this right through the interpretation of 2nd amendment. the second amendment totally negates a key component of the document which foundation upon which our country was built on! i think the founding fathers would have rolled over in their graves if they knew what this country evolved into. the 2nd amendment reads, "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." it pertains to militia, not the populace at large! when the u.s. constitution was adopted, every state had its own militia, a military force of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. the militia was well-regulated, trained, and engaged in military exercises outside of their home. it was a form of voluntary military service intended to protect the country from foreign invaders and from internal rebellions/tyrannical governments. the militia was not a synonym for the populace at large. the gun lobby has twisted it into that. and now average, law-abiding citizens feel compelled to purchase guns out of fear to protect themselves from criminals (who havent been caught yet) and madmen and gun yahoos. they are free to purchase weapons such as handguns and shotguns, whose only intent (unlike the rifle which is used in hunting) is to kill other people. last night i was awoken by a gunshot about a half mile away at 3 a.m. in the morning. i heard the police soon afterwards, but it was an unnerving experience. wtf?!? i dont believe in guns. what a waste of lives! i think handguns, shotguns, automatic weapons, and other concealable weapons should be banned, like they have been in d.c. (although i think they are voting to appeal soon). thats dumb. with the recent sniper and all the crazies shooting at the white house, etc. why make it easier for them? theres NO need for handguns. i have no issues with rifles if you pay for a non-standardized psych test through a state sponsored physician and a polygraph. i think waiting periods are good in theory, they allow for a cool off period for the people with ill intent and allow for the government to run their checks. but a ban would be better.
    • mushroom
      I'm with you on the militia part, seriously, but the Founders in no way wanted to limit individual gun ownership. The English "Bill of Rights" a hundred years earlier restricted gun rights only to Protestants. Still, there's no explanation why military style or large capacity weapons should be manufactured or imported into the county except for valid police/military use. Of course, how can we round them all up at this point, or wait decades for them to fall to attrition/confiscation from arrests.
  • No and no.
  • It's really not that hard to understand. Gun laws don't stop gun crime because criminals break laws, it’s their job. In countries where guns are outlawed criminals still have guns. +2
    • mushroom
      Sure, but the answer to guns is not more guns, just as the answer to nukes is not more nukes. (Ask Kim Jung Un, the peacenik).
  • Nope, and nope.
  • No and no.
  • No, even the instant check is fallible. Psych tests can be passed if you know what they want to hear. Waiting periods are not worth the trouble. If a criminal wants a gun now he will find a way to get it. Punish criminals for their crimes, not everyone else.
  • Yes, I do. It's pretty much a proven fact, actually. Look at gun deaths per capita in the US, where there are ridiculously lax gun control laws. Then, compare that number with the number of gun deaths per capita in countries with gun control laws. US (lax gun control laws) = 11.66 deaths per 100,000 Aus (tight gun control laws) = 2.94 deaths per 100,000 Japan (really, REALLY tight gun control laws) = 0.07 deaths per 100,000 ---- While gun-nuts love to claim that if guns are controlled, criminals will run riot with illegal guns, murdering innocent, and unnarmed civilians, this is simply not true, and the evidence backs this up. Gun control laws clearly DO save lives. Psych tests and stringent regulations, including waiting periods, have been shown with empirical evidence to save lives. End of story.
  • Hard to tell really, waiting periods may cut down the number of 'spur of the moment' gun murders, although it might lead to an increase in knife murders or such like. Peoples psychology changes over time but it couldn't hurt. I do think waiting periods for both is a good idea. Something like 70 or 80 years wait should do the trick.
    • mushroom
      Knife attacks are no less shocking, but they do not result in the same number of deaths, nor are knives accidently fired by children.
  • No, and no. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If you want to regulate guns you may as well regulate knives and candlesticks and cars and hands for that matter. That Slaughter in California where nobody had guns but the criminals that didn't happen in Texas because the civilians in Texas had guns and put a stop to that mess! I think our money would be better invested funding the mental health industry which is terribly lacking. When a civilian going to a County Mental Health Facility can't even be seen unless they're actively psychotic something is very wrong! People should have access to mental health help.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy