Should we have gun control?

There should be a waiting period for gun ownership

Question: Should we have gun control?
Position1 of 3›: Gun ownership should be controlled
Argument‹4 of 6›: There should be a waiting period for gun ownership

Many states have set waiting periods before prospective gun owners are given access to a gun.

The argument

Given that many gun-related homicides, mass shootings, and suicides are committed in moments of extreme rage or depression, making someone wait a pre-determined amount of time between expressing interest in owning a firearm and receiving their weapon could offer a cooling-off period in which the assailant changes their mind. This would drastically reduce suicide deaths. Most suicides have been contemplated for less than 24 hours and are a compulsive decision. Being able to immediately purchase a firearm provides suicidal citizens with an accessible means to commit suicide, which is fatal in 90% of cases (jumping is only fatal in 34% of cases and drug overdoses are only fatal in 2% of cases). States with waiting periods have 51% fewer firearm suicides and a suicide rate 27% lower than states with immediate purchase laws. Waiting periods also reduce gun homicides by 17%. A waiting period also provides a wider window for the authorities to actually carry out a thorough background check. It also doesn’t go against the constitutional right to bear arms. It is a form of gun control without restriction. Citizens are still freely available to buy weapons.

Context

Some states have one-day waiting periods, others have three-day waiting periods, while in others, owners have to wait ten days until they can go home with their firearm.

Premises

[P1]Because many gun homicides, mass shootings, and suicides occur in moments of rage or depression, a mandatory waiting period offers a cooling-off window in which an assailant may change their mind. [P2] States with waiting periods see 51% fewer firearm suicides and 17% fewer gun homicides, and the delay aids thorough background checks—all without barring lawful purchase or violating the right to bear arms. [C] Therefore, because waiting periods save lives without restriction, gun ownership should be controlled.

Counter-arguments

There is not sufficient evidence that introducing waiting periods decreases gun deaths. Waiting periods put citizens at risk. Consider a situation where a citizen felt threatened and believed that their husband was mentally unstable and plotting to kill her. She cannot go to the police on a hunch without evidence. But she is vulnerable and knows she needs to protect herself. She drives to her nearest gun shop, only to find that she must wait three days before she can bring her handgun home. That night, her husband kills her. This argument was what prompted lawmakers in Wisconsin to consider revoking the mandatory 48-hour waiting period on gun sales in the state. Instant background checks now make waiting periods redundant. There are also already mechanisms in place to prevent someone buying a gun and committing a crime of passion. Most gun sales cannot be completed in under an hour. This is plenty of time to cool off. If a person still commits murder after an hour of cooling off, the crime was premeditated and not a crime of passion.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Background checks can now be done instantly. [Rejecting P2] Making people wait puts vulnerable people in need of protection at risk.

Framing

- People should be discouraged from making rash decisions. - The United States Constitution lays out an unassailable set of rights.