• not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Yes it is. I was downvoted to shit last time I said we should have the mandatory 10 days waiting period and background checks. Had nothing but what ifs.

    People treating firearms as fuckin toys should be banned. Your firearm was on unattended and your child killed himself or an other person? Straight to jail. Fuckin hate that people have lost the respect of the tool they are using.

    • grayman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      So what you’re telling me is you and no one you know ever plans for an event more than a week and a half in the future? No wonder you can’t see how dumb this shit is.

      • blujan
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        If that stops even just 1% of murders then that’s actually great.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Well it’ll stop even less than that. Mass shooters plan for months, the law isn’t intended for that. It is meant to stop “crimes of passion” (read: killing your wife), but all that would happen is they prevent this time (or he goes all Chris Benoit), then he picks up his gun 10 days later, and next time he’s in a wife killin’ mood he’s all prepared.

          In fact, statistically, according to the ATF, average “Time to crime” of a firearm (time from purchase to when it ends up involved at a crime scene) is 11 years. That’s a bit longer than 10 days.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            10 days is more than 0. Is that maths too hard for you? a 0 day waiting time would stop NOTHING. 10 days would at least stop spur of the moment killings. Is that not worth something?

            What would you prefer:

            • A higher number of killings
            • A lower number of killings

            If your standard is 0 killings, you’ll agree with nothing, because nothing will get it to 0.

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              So you don’t care that instead of killing his wife on the first of the month, he kills her on the tenth? Sure solved a lot there. Simply killing someone 9 days later than origionally intended is somehow lowering the number of killings? And no mention of average time to crime being eleven whole years? Again I posit that 11 years is longer than 10 days, there are 410.5 “10 days” stretches in 11yrs, by the time that first gun typically shows up in crime he could have 410 guns and be 5 days from his 411th.

                  • irmoz@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    Oh, but your argument before was that 10 days isn’t long enough. Was that just a trick?

                    Sounds to me like you’re one of those people that says, “I’m not against gun control in principle, it just has to be done right”, then disagrees with every gun control proposal. Because you actually are against gun control.