Originally posted by: Specop 007
Waiting period - Most people dont wake up one day and decide to go kill someone so go buy a gun. Usually, if you want to commit a crime or kill someone you most likely already own a gun. While it sounds good on paper, very very few crimes are commited by people who bought the gun that day. More importantly, waiting periods make it difficult to buy a gun if you need one quickly. An example is a woman who fears for her life from an ex. So while shes waiting for her waiting period to expire shes a potential victim.
While I agree and disagree with the waiting period the situation your argument about the woman fearing for her life is a bit extreme, but for the sake of argument I would ask does this woman that is fearing for her life have any training in loading and shooting a gun? If not, she really does not need one as statically she is more likely to have it taken away and used against her than she is for the purpose of using it to defend her self. Besides she could just as easily go stay at a friends house, or a hotel, or call the police (or go to the police station).
But in the end, the idea of a waiting period was less so the person could cool off as it was to complete the background check. 5+ or so years ago it took longer to do a background check so the waiting period was put into place, today there is not a waiting period because background checks are pretty instantaneous.
Background checks - It keeps the criminals from having guns......Of course they just buy them face to face from their friends. Minimal checks are a good thing IMO. The problem is when they start going to far on the checks and turn it into registration. A more interesting debate to this is why do we need background checks? Criminals who are deemed unsafe to own a gun shouldnt be on the streets! In other words, if you've served your time and have been released from jail then the asusmption is you're reformed. So you should have every right to a gun, as the Powers That Be have shown they think you're reformed.......
Being reformed (which is not something they do in Prison) and being punished for committing a crime are separate issues. I would say going to prison is a punishment and when you come out you may be reformed due to your own personal desire to start a new life, or you may not. If you are a felon, you should not and have no reason to own a firearm. If you think that is unfair to the felon, maybe they should not commit a felony in the first place.
Second, background checks are a good idea because there is no reason not to create at least some kind of paper trail surrounding the buying of a firearm. Also it helps avoid people using fake ID's and other ways to get around this law. The idea that criminals will always get guns illegally so the only thing this does is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get a gun is true. No one ever said background checks and registration of firearms is really going to effect criminals, but what it does is protect law abiding citizens because they have proof they did what then needed to when they bought the firearm. Criminals that got the gun illegally will have no proof, and will be charged with a crime.
Age restrictions - It keeps kids from going and buying pistols and doing something stupid. No one could ever agree on a good age though. Some say 16, some 18, some 21. Who knows?
The same could be true for all things that effect the general public, such as driving a car. The only thing I can say is, I remember doing some pretty dumb and dangerous things when I was 16 (I would assume most people did dumb and dangerous things when they were 16) so should 16 year olds have legal access to firearms? It would depend on the 16 year old, and the law does not work that way.
Restrictive CCW - Why restrict it? The point of CCW is to defend yourself from potential harm. It makes no sense to have law abiding citizens unable to defend themselves, when you know criminals do not follow the laws.
Restrict CCW's how? Like where you can or cannot take your concealed weapon? I am thinking there is a good reason for that. I am not sure you really need to take your gun into court or to the bank. True, criminals do not follow the laws (hence the reason why they are called criminals) but that said, I think that going into a bank with a cocealed weapon is kind of dumb as the teller could freak out and think you are trying to rob the bank if she/he saw it.
In the end, if you do a search for concealed weapons statistics you find various reports on how lax CCW law and strict CCW laws have reduced crime. For example:
In the 29 states that have lax CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants), the crime rate fell 2.1%, from 5397.0 to 5285.1 crimes per 100,000 population from 1996 to 1997. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict carry laws or which don?t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 4.4%, from 4810.5 to 4599.9 crimes per 100,000 population.
Link to Brady Campaign
According to this website there is 50% more crime in states with lax CCW laws.
or this:
Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992) -
The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).
Link to NRA CCW Statistics
According to this website there is a 26% more violent crime in states that allow CCW's.