How many times have you heard about this type of thing happening? I'm not saying that it doesn't (in reality it probably does a few times a year), but the inconvenience of having waiting periods for the firearms that are sold and not used in spur-of-the-moment shootings far outweighs the few lives that may or may not even be saved. Keep in mind that your scenario above can be equally applied to using other instruments:

Counter-points:
Two guys get in a fight, tempers flare. Guy #1 walks to his car, waits for guy #2 to walk down the street. Guy #1 runs guy #2 down and kills him.

Two guys get in a fight, tempers flare. Guy #1 walks down to the local sporting goods store and buys a hunting knife, baseball bat, whatever. Guy #1 stabs guy #2 (or beats him to a pulp, etc.).

The same can be said of just about anything, right? A large wrench, a hammer, a nail gun, an attack dog, an icepick, an archery set-- well, I think you can probably see my point. I haven't heard anyone ever argue about having 10 day waiting periods for getting any of these in the name of safety/having a cooling off period/etc.

I think that having 10 day waiting periods really comes down to a matter of simple politics and nothing more. Liberal politicians want to give the appearance of "being tough on crime" (whatever that means, since only law abiding citizens will obey a 10 day waiting period in the first place). Being in favor of waiting periods makes for good sound bites, especially in liberal states.

Let's state the real purpose behind waiting periods, then. Since I've just shown that different instruments can be used to accomplish the same end in your given scenario, and since there are no waiting periods to purchases these other instruments, handgun purchase waiting periods really aren't all about safety. (If safety was the main concern the measure would cover other things like archery sets, hunting knives, etc.) Since only law abiding citizens will go through the hassle and wait to get their purchase, it's not about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Waiting periods reduce the "convenience factor" and create extra hurdles that gun shops and gun purchasers must go through, thus potentially resulting in fewer weapons purchases and definitely resulting in frustration on the part of gun shop owners and gun purchasers-- frustration that the government is meddling in what should be a private affair, putting its nose once again in a place where it doesn't belong. Waiting periods are little more than a political stunt, used to give the impression that something is being done to make people safer.

[Edit]: Also, just wanted to let you know a little about me... I live in Northern Virginia. When I originally moved to the area (about 10 years ago), I looked at Maryland as a place to live (wanted to avoid those darn car taxes ). Then I looked at Maryland's gun laws, and also saw that it was a rather liberal state. A few years ago, when I was moving, I looked at Maryland as a possibility again. Then I realized that getting a CCW there would be next to impossible, and saw that some things (like large capacity magazines) were also illegal. Scratched it off my list once again. My point: anti-gun sentiment in states like Maryland can actually hurt the state in the long run, as people decide to locate and shop elsewhere because they feel they aren't welcome. Even though I haven't gotten my CCW yet here in VA, knowing that I can if I want to means something to me. It represents a freedom that I have that many Marylanders will unfortunately not be able to experience.

You don't hear about it because there are waiting periods.

Why anyone debates a waiting period I can't get. If you can't understand why society would at least ask that you wait two weeks to have a firearm....I can't rationalize to you why this is appropriate.

I can't imagine what B-Mores murder rate would be if there was no waiting period, at least getting an illegal gun takes a couple hours.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I don't know about that. There are essentially no waiting periods here in Northern Virginia (aside from having to wait for a background check, which can be done in a few minutes to a couple of hours... depending upon how busy the state police are). I don't hear about these things going on left and right down here. Again, only law abiding people abide by this law. Law abiding people don't buy guns and then immediately go out and shoot people.

I'll advance that you can't rationalize why it's appropriate because it isn't appropriate. The government should not have the ability to deny people a constitutional right in the name of the appearance of safety and liberal gun-hating politics. Waiting periods do not make us appreciably safer-- the miniscule additional safety provided is far outweighed by the sheer inconvenience of having to wait-- not to mention the hinderance and interference in free market transactions.

Once again, if the government's interest behind waiting periods was actually a safe society, they wouldn't waste time with instituting waiting periods in the first place. Instead they would focus on requiring safety features being built into weapons-- like advanced biometric technologies and the like (aka a James Bond-style signature gun). Doing this would render stolen firearms useless (thus drying up the black market for firearms) and also preventing accidental shootings at home by children who find guns, pick them up, and start playing. There are better ways to accomplish a goal of a safe society than creating a window-dressing law that only gives the appearance of it. The amount of crime stopped by a 10 day waiting period is miniscule.

As for Baltimore's murder rate... well, it's not just Baltimore. Look at DC-- just down the road a bit-- as bad or even worse. And they don't even allow handguns in the city! (So much for the theory that 10 day waiting periods make people safer. DC doesn't even allow handguns and their murder rate is usually pretty bad.)

Compare Baltimore (which I'm assuming has a waiting period?) to Richmond (which doesn't have any state-required waiting period)-- which has the lower crime rate? (It's an honest question, as I don't know the answer.) I would be curious to see if there is any correlation between firearms restrictions and lower crime as your position infers-- my guess is that the answer will be no. (And if a correlation is found, that's still a long distance away from proving causation-- which is really what your position assumes.)

I'm still not seeing the denial of a right I guess....

What are you talking about, from your posts your insinuating that I'm against gun rights...have you read this whole thread??

Why fight a battle against waiting periods when you could fight one of the following:

- carry laws
- responsibility laws (i.e. stronger laws against those that do not secure their firearm)

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

His beef is the inconvenience factor. Next thing the gun lobby will ask for is handgun vending machines. After-all, you can buy marijuana in vending machines in LA why not handguns. They go hand in hand in LA so technically an argument can be made.

I agree...Pick your battles.

I've signed a petition in MD recently for opening up all carry laws in the state. I've never understood why you can pass all the legal procedures to have a firearm, yet can't carry it. If you were "ok" to have it, carrying it should be part of the responsibility.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in California ever as Liberal and anti-gun as this State is compared to the rest of civil society.

In MD you need written death threats or to carry large amounts of money (business related). Go team.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I usually stay out of these debates.... but I just can't resist today.

For all you guys out there saying that a waiting period is a good thing when used as a cooling off period to keep people from buying a gun and then going out and using it.... How about waving that waiting period for people that arleady own a gun and want to add another to a collection? As a gun owner I've already been past that cooling off period. Just a thought.....