• grayman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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
        ·
        1 year 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
          ·
          1 year 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
            ·
            1 year 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
                  1 year 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.

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

                    No, my argument was that a 10 day wait period was “pointless, because it does fuck all.”

                    Oh, and yes, I am against further gun control that has no impact. I, unlike you, don’t just want to pretend I’m helping, I actually want to address the root causes of violence (not just gun violence) themselves. It may be harder but at least it isn’t “completely useless feel good legislation that isn’t even actually designed to actually solve the issue because if they did solve it they couldn’t use it to pressure you for votes.”