Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
"So what are you claiming takes ten days?"
It's ten now. Down from 15.
I can't remember the last gun I bought I didn't have to wait ten days. Even long guns now. It's the law in California.
Even transfers between brothers are subject to this waiting period. Two of my uncles found that out recently when one of them wanted to give the other one an over-under shotgun. Forms, fees, and a mandated waiting period all applied to the transfer.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
California is not the country.
Most states have NO WAITING PERIOD. Unless I'm mistaken, this took place in CO, which has NO WAITING PERIOD.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
ruppell, you've obviously mistaken my motivations.
And you know what...I'd answer exactly the same way. And I'd bet that most of the typical pro-gun contingent probably would, too....but they would never say so.
And that...I just don't understand.
In the post-Newtown congressional weaksauce effort, 90% of Americans polled believed background checks should be mandatory for purchases.
I'm not just pulling that out of my arse...multiple polls found the same opinion.
And yet nothing happened. Once again, the NRA and 90% of congress who are in the back pockets of the gun lobby completely caved, against the will of 90% of the American people.
I'd bet an OE800 that there's vast agreement on some of those simple questions, but the gun lobby, NRA & the media continue to keep the waters as muddy as possible to serve their own fecking interests.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
"Most states have NO WAITING PERIOD."
If that's what you want, move to California. Pate, too.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
fuking idiot
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
jghedge writes:
"And most states have no waiting period.
You don't know that?"
Of course I know that.
I'm a Californian. Lifelong. I'm not allowed to buy a gun in any other state, so all of my handguns - and some of my long guns - were subject to the California mandated wait.
The mandated wait made sense back when it took the bank two weeks to clear a check, or when bad credit cards were listed in a book. When things were done by snail-mail.
But necessary background checks can be done while-you-wait now. Like an hour or less.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
To the Q how long --- Long enough to do a complete back ground check & some cooling off time 30 days should be fine. But I'm not apposed to 60 days.
IF YOU CAN'T WAIT 30 DAYS FOR SOMETHING YOU WANT you really didn't want or need it.
I've waited two years to have a gun made. I really wanted it & still twenty years later am glad I have it.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
necessary background checks can be done while-you-wait now. Like an hour or less.
Great! Now there is no reason for anyone without a criminal RECORD to wait before enjoying their very own killing machine!!!
i.e. BUYING ONE ON A WHIM
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
I've been really pissed off in the past. I wanted to kick people's asses. But, I took a hike and thought about it.
I'm pretty sure this is all Pate is talking about. Being given instant access to a tool that kills in the heat of the moment can produce really negative things.
Do you want negative things to happen?
If you're a serious gun owner, then waiting a few days for your new gun won't matter.
What's the issue here?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Domestic violence = mental instability. She was the instigator in the violence, according to the police.
No....
Shooting your own son to "get even" with the husband you're actually pissed at = mental instability!!!
No doubt she was the instigator. That's not what's at issue here. As Pate interpreted the story for us, HE claimed that "mental instability" was not at issue here. Then YOU called her "an obvious danger to the community."
Can't have it both ways. If she WAS an obvious danger to the community, then she was "mentally unstable." Which is it? And would her exact form of "instability" led anybody to project that she was capable of shooting her own SON to get even at her husband (I'm still totally lost on that one!)?
And by exactly what metrics should the police have been able to keep her from getting a gun? How should the law have been formulated to keep her (pre-crime) from doing what she did?
And nobody is yet addressing the question about waiting periods: HOW LONG of a waiting period keeps THIS story from happening again???
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
And nobody is yet addressing the question about waiting periods: HOW LONG of a waiting period keeps THIS story from happening again???
Well, it obviously ranges from the current waiting period of ZERO arbitrary time units to the maximum of INFINITE arbitrary time units. 30 days sounds like a reasonable compromise, I think. I'd even support trying a 10 day nationwide waiting period for starters. Are you willing to compromise and come up to something above ZERO? If not, why not?
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
But necessary background checks can be done while-you-wait now. Like an hour or less.
Wrong.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
A waiting period wouldn't have helped much here.
If she was nuts enough to off her own son, all that would have changed is the selected implement.
3-7 day waiting period for handguns is common.
Long guns are used so infrequently in homicides that a waiting period for them doesn't make much sense.
More people are beaten to death with bare fists and feet every year than killed with long guns.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
30 days should be fine. But I'm not apposed to 60 days.
Some are saying "a few days" now. Pretty big spectrum.
The pre-crime mentality will never, ever keep this story from happening again. Even 60 days might well reduce the incidence; I'll grant that logical possibility.
But even granting that doesn't keep some other "Pate" from having this same story to tell. And then the waiting period should, what?, be increased to six months (after all, "if you really want a gun, you can wait six months for it")? What about a year?
After all, the longer you make people wait, by this line of thinking, the MORE you "reduce" the incidence of "spontaneous" violence. Right? And, as the standard line goes: "If it can save the life of even one child like this one...."
Of course, the story can be SLIGHTLY modified: she got the guns AFTER a six month waiting period. THEN she found out about the pictures and used a gun she already legally had to kill her own son. Oh well....
Why no comparable outrage at the many, many times more children killed in this country by second-hand smoke every year? Do you really NEED to smoke, particularly around your kid? Is that a "right" you have, particularly one mentioned explicitly in our Constitution?
Come on! This "debate" has NOTHING to do with saving kids' lives. If it did, you would be consistent about other far more deadly and prevalent and UNNECESSARY wastes of kids' lives.
How about this? I give you a six month waiting period for every gun purchase, and you give me a six month waiting period for every pack of cigarettes? (And you don't get to buy cartons! You buy by the pack, as NEEDED, with a six month waiting period each time.) Now, on BOTH fronts, we're seriously talking about a reduction in sales of these items. Right?
You really want to reduce stories like this one, where an innocent kid gets killed because some adult had a twisted "need" to fulfill? Then let's be consistent! Make the MOST likely vectors of unnecessary death ALL very hard to get. And by that model, you'll go after cigarettes before you'll go after guns... or at least exhibit comparable outrage at how EASY cigs are (even for kids) to get.
Somehow, though, the "killing machine" is SO much sexier of a thing to get outraged about than "killing sticks."
Six month waiting periods! I'm all for 'em! But don't just go after guns. Go after cigs, half-gallons of ice cream, quarter-pounders with cheese, and the list goes on and on and on! Let's face it: PEOPLE abuse all of these things, and kids suffer and die because of these bad choices. People are simply NOT responsible, and kids suffer and die because of that fact.
So, let's get serious about reducing needless carnage in this country, particularly among the young! Let's get SERIOUS about "preventing" all that needless death! And, let's face it: You don't NEED any of those things either. Yayyy... NY! Let's get MORE soda-limitation laws in place. Ice cream vouchers! Maybe like Japan, we can also have male waistline-size laws, with mandatory diets and exercise for violating the law (I'm not making it up; look it up). Yayyy... Big Brother keeping us safe from ourselves! After all, if it can save even one life....
"If you really want that half-gallon of ice cream, you can wait six months for it, and your waistline (and those of your kids) will thank you for it."
Look, just because the killing is more insidious does not make it less statistically significant or certain! Put your outrage and efforts where the statistically significant causes of needless death REALLY are.
Six month waiting periods all around! Yayyyy!!! I'm on board, and I'll vote for ALL such legislation... as long as it's consistent. Six month waiting periods for virtually EVERYTHING! Stop needless death!!! Yayyy!!!
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
3-7 day waiting period for handguns is common.
How is 10 states out of 50 "common?"
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Why would you think that she was either one or the other?
I explained why: You agree with Pate in this debate. His argument included the claim that "mental instability" was not a factor here. Your argument claims that she was an "obvious danger to the community."
WHICH argument are you going with? You can't have it both ways.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Come on! This "debate" has NOTHING to do with saving kids' lives.
Of course not. It has to do with waiting periods for gun purchases; something 80% of states DO NOT HAVE but most sane people agree they should.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
jghedge writes:
"Then why did you claim that "anybody who tells you you can buy a gun "on a whim" is either not informed or is lying to you", when you claim to know otherwise?"
Because just passing the instant background check takes about an hour. Not like you're buying a Lottery Ticket - which is something you actually can do "on a whim".
If voting were subject passing a test - or even showing ID - I'm sure guys like jghedge would claim an insurmountable hurdle for those in the minority community.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Of course not. It has to do with waiting periods for gun purchases;
Ahh... some honesty. Okay, then Pate's pathos-laden tale is really irrelevant to the goal in mind here. But, then, one wonders WHAT motivates the stated goal....
...something 80% of states DO NOT HAVE but most sane people agree they should.
Well, I'm sane (heh heh... yup, really I am... I can see it when I look in the mirror...), and I think waiting periods are irrelevant, as, apparently the vast majority of states (by your lights all, apparently, insane) agree.
Once we get off the knee-jerk bandwagon and start coolly and analytically assessing the motivations for various legislative "solutions," we pretty quickly find them to be inconsistent and unmotivated.
Even if we imposed every legislative "solution" you pleased to the "gun problem," Pate's story STILL happens! And, worse, you don't even TOUCH the far, far more statistically significant causes of needless death (particularly among kids) in this country.
Just be consistent in your "pre-crime" thinking is all I ask. Should that be too much for a SANE person to ask? Consistency?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Name me one thing you can't just buy "on a whim" then, just so we're speaking the same language.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!