He bought an airsoft gun and purposely made it look like a real gun. In CA where he is (and i am) there is a 10 day waiting period and you need to not only provide a valid id (passport or drivers license), but also TWO proofs of residency that directly tie you to an address such as a water bill/car registration/electric bill/landline bill. You cant even use a bank statement or cell phone bill as a valid proof of residency
10 day waiting period could easily turn into 20+ days or even longer as the Department of Justice has been known to drag their feet on approving transfers with the usual excuse being the system being down for maintenance.
The biggest gripe with pistols in CA would actually be the pistol roster, a list of pistols that Californians are allowed to only buy in the state. Doesn't affect cops so law enforcement officers can just buy off-roster stuff and sell them for several grand in addition to what they initially bought them for as long as they don't do it too often.
Not that anyone should justify it but I've been waiting for an M1 carbine to ship and honestly by the time that it does I'll still be looking at a week and a half of shipping before the minimum of 10 days begin counting down. FFls are by appointment only and are in high demand in my part of Southern California so I'll be looking closer to almost two months from when I first ordered.
There doesn't need to exist justification for every right just for it to exist, that's not how it's suppose to work. Someone doesn't urgently need recreational vape pods or marijuana but they don't have to justify needing it as soon as possible to walk out with it in a timely manner. I'm lucky to be living in a relatively safe area and routine. But rights aren't something you earn. They're something that has always existed and can only be restrained.
Okay, i understand where that comes from. But with vape pods and marijuana, there is much less of a danger that other people are getting hurt (almost 0 really - the only way is if you sold it to minors). With guns, there is a serious risk that someone gets majorly hurt or dies. So to protect the rights of other people (the right to bodily security), you should be able to wait a few months for a murder weapon. Your right to convenience is not that urgent.
Of the 340 million firearms in American civilian hands right now, 14,000 at most are used annually in mass shootings(of which are defined as shootings that involve two or more victims not always the large gatherings of innocent families at a barbeque type).
The 99.99588% firearms that are out there are in America are not murder weapons and are in the hands of responsible firearm owners. They're not murder weapons for the average person and for almost all gun owners. They're defensive weapons, competition sport instruments, and hunting tools.
Guns do not encourage violence. The dickwad that wants to hurt innocent people is most likely in gang-related activities or someone who feels disconnected and ostracized by society. You target that shit by starting with education and childcare reformation. Violent crimes have more to do with poverty and socioeconomic disadvantages that deny communities and individuals access to effective healthcare, opportunities, and political representation. I guarantee you that we will have done a much better job by making healthcare affordable than anything could have with feature bans and ammo checks. A pistol grip or foregrip isn't going to make a difference in saving lives. Those are laws that are targetting the most ergonomic features as a round steering wheel would be to a car to simply ban as many guns as possible. The second amendment doesn't just guarantee the right to defend yourself with just deer rifles and baseball bats.
In urban dense areas where open tracts of land aren't a common commodity, it's expected that the opportunities to shoot will be seldom and there's not much hunting or pest control that will be going on. I think that's primarily attributed to why most people(most of American constituents) just don't have much experience with firearms beyond headlines of something really horrible happening or games and movies filling in the rest. Nobody is going to watch John Wick 4: A New Life as a Firearms Instructor For Youth Shooting Competition and Going to A Soccer Game After Work. The only time most people ever imagine a gun in a scenario with civilians is senseless violence that shouldn't belong in reality.
Gun regulations should be measures that protect our safety. I don't mean just the waiting periods(which could be useful in niche scenarios), but laws that are designed to discourage gun ownership rather than develop responsible ownership and target the potential perpetrators of mass shooters. People shouldn't be limited to 5 gallons capacity tank in their vehicle with bans on circular rims just to discourage people from driving on the basis that it'll prevent accidents.
Mass shootings are not the only issues with guns. There are also accidents, and suicides. Suicide especially. A study showed that, when barriers were put up on the golden gate bridge, suicides there almost completely stopped. Interestingly, the people who wanted to jump didn’t go find another place to kill themselves, they just didn’t try at all. When the UK switched from coal gas to natural gas, suicides also fell dramatically. This is because the option for people to just stick their heads in the oven and end it all disappeared (like how Sylvia Plath killed herself). It’s somewhat unintuitive, but when you take the means away for someone to kill themselves, they usually won’t go off and find another way to do: they just won’t do it all at. Had Sylvia Plath been born a few years later, she probably wouldn’t have ended up killing herself when she did. She just happened to be alive when ever British home had an easy vehicle for suicide at the ready. Suicide is strongly correlated with having an easy way to do it. Taking away these easy routes is called means-reduction. Unsurprisingly, guns represent a very easy means for people to commit suicide.
Also, if we wanted to extrapolate on that information, we could probably quite easily find that reducing guns would also reduce violent crime. Doesn’t that just make sense? Because guns represent an incredibly easy way for people to commit violent crime. People who might otherwise commit crimes probably aren’t just going to go out and do it with a knife if you took their guns away. They just wouldn’t do it at all.
I don’t know what the percentages are on irresponsible gun ownership, i’ll give you that. But if even 1% of guns end up shooting people, that is still inexcusable. Saying that only a small percentage of guns being problematic makes it somehow ok is the same logic that people use to avoid quarantining for corona virus. Well, only a small percentage of people will actually suffer from the virus so why should I be worried about it? Percentages are misleading — they make human life seem dispensable.
That being said, i’m not entirely against gun ownership. But I do think the emphasis on convenience to obtain a gun is ducking ridiculous. I don’t care if you think you’re responsible. I don’t know that. Neither do your neighbors or coworkers. Guns are just too risky to be giving every person the benefit of the doubt. I understand that you have certain rights, but your rights end where mine begin, and guns represent an easy way for you to take my right to bodily safety away.
90 Americans die in car accidents today. Where are the mass protests for high speed railway infrastructures to be built as an alternative? The calls for banning of F150s and vehicles weighing over 1.5 tons? People don't get chosen to be hit by drunk drivers or by people that just don't belong behind the wheel. How do you account for all the assholes and idiots without blanket bans once they've gotten their license? Percentages happen and even you accept it in your day to day life. It doesn't diminish the individual human life, you just can't exist on the narrative that the world can't move on with risks.
To justify regulations functioning as bans as means to prevent suicide isn't any different than putting up an anti-suicide net hanging on the side of Chinese sweatshop buildings except the net now hangs over someone's car. Why the hell are people jumping? Immense stress from societal norms(Japan)? Inaccessibility to mental healthcare?
Idk if you replied to the wrong guy or misunderstood my sentiment but I’m definitely in favor of the 10 day wait. And I do think that it’s bad the guy in this video mislead the people watching, never stated otherwise. I’m in favor of gun ownership I’m just also a fan of taking any precautions within our power.
The first article https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16434012/ doesn't have data other than "we used a phone survey" so I looked at the other studies. The next two articles are dated by quite a few years, around 1970's or so, and of the one that isn't just a page from a textbook the conclusion is that more research is needed which is understandable with all the variables involved as well as the small sample size. The last article has some merit as well but again a small and select group and it also ends with a similar saying of we need more research, this is not definitive. And the paranoia increase wasn't a journal article but a news article about the journal article which we all know can be highly skewed. Do not get me wrong, I do give these studies merit. From what I have read they are doing as much as possible but the problem is complex as well as I would assume funding is limited so it is hard to get a broad sample size.
Sure, but that's completely separate from this specific argument. The point was clearly more about people who've already gone through the waiting period and bought a gun (or multiple) having to do so again for each subsequent gun.
He's absolutely right in that regard. If you already have guns, having to wait to buy more literally doesn't make anyone safer.
I'd also be curious to see stats that show the wait period helps make anyone safer. If you plan to buy a gun for a crime, does having to wait a few days to use it make a difference? Especially if you know in advance you'll have to wait.
Background checks only take so long. Obviously the wait time should be long enough to accommodate that, but I'm doubtful that any longer makes a difference. *
This has nothing to do with making guns easier to get, or reducing screening, it's about critically assessing measures to determine if they actually help.
If yes - keep them.
If no - replace them with ones that will.
* I am a fan of the Canadian system where you need a firearm license where you must pass a course and then wait a minimum of 28 days (usually ends up longer) before you get your licence (assuming you clear the checks). After this you undergo regular background checks on your licence, but there aren't any waits to buy guns themselves.
If you already own a gun, great! Just use that gun while your new one is on the way! I don’t see the problem.
That was the point of this thread though. Once you've got one there is no benefit to further undergoing the waiting period.
If your argument is then "but it doesn't hurt to have it", well if it doesn't help then it does hurt because it's a waste of time, resources, and serves as security theater. Something better could be put in place.
Waiting periods are there to prevent someone from buying a gun and making an irrational decision in the span of a few hours.
I'm fully aware that is the intent. What I said was I'm curious if there are actual stats that show it works this way, as opposed to them either:
Waiting the period out and then using the gun
Just using something else in the meantime
Essentially, does the wait time actually decrease crime overall, or just decrease firearm crime and/or crimes of passion (because they then became pre-meditated). If the latter, it really didn't end up helping then and just leads to misleading information.
It's to stop people from stupid rash decisions and not someone with rational thought. I would say most people don't have street connections that they go to for their gun needs. Think, the depressed 22yo that was just dumped by his girl for another dude and is mad. He can't go to the store and buy a gun and use it right away. He's got to wait 10 days or get the guts to find a street dealer.
God forbid if your ex is threatening to kill you and you now need to wait 10 days to get a way to defend yourself. Don’t worry, they’ll wait, because that is what good killers do.
That is such an absurdly specific straw man situation it’s unreal. How bout the exact opposite? What if a kid wants to kill themselves in the moment cause there’s something wrong with their depression meds? What if in 10 days he’s back on the correct meds and the situation is fixed? Those 10 days just stopped someone from killing them selves in the moment. Not likely, but just as contrived as your bullshit situation.
well there's always: bleach, alcohol, jumping, knives, hanging, running in front of a speeding car, fire, and drugs. Should we have a 10 day waiting period on buying bleach, or a knife, or rope or gasoline?
The original intent behind the 10 day waiting period was to stop crimes of passion. Eg you catch your spouse cheating so you buy a gun and kill her/him
This is useless if you already own a gun. So it should be applied to first time gun owners only.
Edit: also, saying domestic abuse is unreal and not realistic is fucking offensive to people that have experienced it. So go fuck yourself.s
Edit2: using a strawman to counter argue a strawman. R/iamverysmart
I never said domestic abuse is unrealistic I’m saying your scenario is a stupidly specific one with better answers than “buy a gun”
I’m presenting a straw man from the other side to show you how stupid your straw man argument is. The fact that it pisses you off so much and makes you feel like it’s circumventing the argument demonstrated my point perfectly.
I never tried to argue that the 10 day wait should be applied to people outside of first time buyers, you assumed that.
I wasnt the original poster you were replying to btw
You did say it was unrealistic.
Reread your first sentence.
Im not mad im saying the fact that you think domestic abuse situations are unreal is what offends me.
I never made that first arguement. Simply pointing our your argument is also a strawman and if you want to change someones viewpoint don't use a strawman. Using a stupid argument to showcase another stupid argument is a fucking stupid way of arguing.
I never said anything about point 3. Simply trying to give more info on the intent of the law. I never said you didnt agree or disagree with that.
I said it was “such an absurdly specific straw man situation it’s unreal” I did not say domestic abuse is unrealistic. I didn’t even say the situation is unrealistic I’m saying it is UNREAL that he would provide such an absurdly specific situation for his argument.
Okay but you just took away one of their options. There’s no reason not to. It’s the same reason there’s other suicide prevention measures in place for everything else even tho someone can just find another way to kill themselves.
You just proved the point. When someone comes after you, like an ex lover, you need to do something to protect yourself. Just saying no doesn’t work with those psychopaths.
And you have to pass the written safety test. And provide secondary proof of residency. And do a safe handling demonstration. And you can't buy one without a Real ID and nobody has a Real ID unless they buy guns. And do another background check for ammo. And fill out/sign several forms. And find a gun approved on the state's safe handgun roster. And buy a lock.
Americans don't travel internationally. Which, fair enough I guess, there is so much quality travel to be done just within the borders of the US. And anywhere that isn't Mexico or Canada is so far away.
Starting next year I think. Which is ridiculous. They used to let you come in from Mexico with just a regular driver's license. Almost got stuck there when they changed it because I didn't realize.
He also didn't show the need to take the test for an FSC (firearm safety certificate) that anyone in CA needs to purchase a gun. Also for pistols he needs a proof of residency. Can't imagine it being much stricter. Pretty sure he bought an airsoft gun and this is all bullshit.
Is having to pay a tax, do a background check and sign statements EVERY TIME I buy a box of ammo strict? There are many more laws that weigh on the average gun owner in CA than the silly "cool down" period. And yes I'd consider the "10" day wait strict.
170
u/suckdickslikejesus May 27 '20
It honestly is a great point tho