> Typically speaking waiting periods are about reducing the risk of someone in a crisis purchasing a firearm and immediately using it for harm, usually either suicide or domestic violence. From a public health perspective there is very little increase in danger for someone buying a second gun, especially of the same type. All of the risk is for their first firearm.
This assumes that people don't get rid of firearms or have changes in mental health. There doesn't seem to be much of a justifiable reason to get a gun on short notice, so why not just apply it universally?
> If you're pro-firearm, there is very little difference between "you have to register your gun" and "you have to register to buy a gun".
I'm pro firearm. I'm also vehemently pro education. If you need a license to prove you can safely operate a motor vehicle, you should need a license to purchase a semi-automatic weapon IMO.
I disagree, there is a functional difference between licensing gun owners vs registering guns. One tracks that an owner has gone through training and is authorized to purchase certain types of weapons. It doesn't concretely determine whether they own, or have ever owned a firearm, just like a driver's license does not determine that I own, or have ever owned a motor vehicle (just that I was able to borrow one for the duration of my practical exam). Further, mandatory registration of firearms would include things such as purchase date, serial number, model, location of purchase, etc., which is actually new information that could be potentially used to track and confiscate firearms under certain circumstances. I'd also like to point out that a background check gives more info about the purchase of firearms than a license would. It tells: the date of purchase, the rough type of firearm (handgun vs anything else, at least in WI), and the location of purchase.