Gun store owners complained about the guidance, released just Tuesday, and the loss of sales to out-of-state visitors during Maine’s busy summer tourism season. They also said the waiting period will take a toll on gun shows.
Awww, it's a real shame that saving a few lives might cost a few dollars to business owners who sell the weapons used to take those lives.
loss of sales to out-of-state visitors
business owners with the attitude of "the whole world is obliged to keep me in business" AKA "i'm entitled to all the money everyone hasn't given me" can go fuck themselves
yes, that's basically all of them
People who operate in the murder weapons business are upset that the murder rate might go down.
They deal with death but can't deal with the fact that their business dies...
I am once again asking for recognition that the primary drivers of violence like this are socioeconomic inequality and lack of mental health care
Other nations struggle with those issues too but don't have the same problem with gun violence. I wonder why?
Other nations struggle with those issues too
I agree with you but other nations is vague. If by other nations you are comparing us to other very developed nations (Ex Europe) I would counter that the US has these issues to a way more extreme degree.
If you look at the UK for example, there are areas of high poverty and access to mental health care is practically nonexistent. I wouldn't describe the difference between the UK and the US on these issues as "way more extreme".
The biggest difference is access to firearms.
Sure wish the people who wanted to make guns as easy to get as possible weren't saying the same thing while also stamping out any initiative to address these issues and defunding any existing ones.
Me too, bud. Me too.
Don't worry. The Supreme Court will rule it's unconstitutional. Can't let people's lives get in the way when there are gun manufacturer profits to worry about.
"Things should be left up to the state...wait, not that thing"
By ruling this unconstitutional it would possibly make the case about Hunter not being allowed to purchase a gun at said time unconstitutional as well would it not? That was not a federal form, but a state gun purchasing restriction. Not sure they want to chance that right now.
I guess people want something done without knowing what to do... As the article states, this law wouldn't have prevented the shooting that motivated passing it.
It wasn't just 1 shooting that motivated it, and you clearly must know that, so why are you trying to sell a false narrative? This will save lives as well. It isn't a full solution though. This will mitigate immediate crimes of passion using guns by people who don't currently own them. The number of people who go out and buy a gun when upset to shoot someone is non-zero. The number of people who have calmed down enough 3 days later will hopefully also be non-zero. Florida always had a longer period for such.
Waiting periods do appear to have a small but significant effect on reducing gun homicides according to the research I've seen, although I haven't looked at data specifically for Maine, which is a state with a lot more guns but a lot less gun violence than the average.
(The study I looked at appears to show that background checks increase gun homicides so I don't trust it very much, but a Rand meta-analysis also claims that that small but significant effect is real.)
My point isn't that waiting periods are bad policy but rather that they're an irrational response to this mass shooting. (And it is this particular mass shooting that convinced Maine to pass the law.) Gun violence that would not have been prevented by a waiting period is evidence against the efficacy of waiting periods, but here people are responding to that evidence by increasing their support for waiting periods. It's contrary to basic logic.
The guy had pretty bad brain damage and was apparently a grenade trainer in the army. There have been some deeply unsettling links to the use of explosives and CTE. These injuries likely can't be mitigated by better helmets/armor either. CTE is directly linked to violence.
Maine has no capability to alter what our military uses as ordinance. It can, in the wake of a horrifying slaughter commited with a gun, look at ways of mitigating future gun murders. That's what it's has done here. Not a "1 for 1" response to a specific issue they can't affect, but an overall improvement of gun safety.
You're right about CTE, but I still don't see why passing this legislation in response to a mass shooting that it would not have prevented makes more sense than, for example, restricting guns in response to a murder committed with a knife. In both cases, the murder weapon is outside of the category of weapons affected by the law.
But it may help prevent future incidents from happening.
You don't know until you try. Or you can simply look to other nations who have similar gun control rules in place to see what the outcomes might be.
It's a start.
A very small one, but it's still a move in the right direction.
“Three day planning period implemented in Maine”
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.