It is my understanding that guns may be purchased without background checks at gun shows in many states. If that is indeed the case, I think that should be changed.
As for waiting periods cutting both ways, I believe an abused spouse would be much better served by resorting to something other than a first-time gun purchase. She (or he) is probably more likely to get killed with that gun than to effectively defend herself. I actually think the waiting period would be the most effective form of gun control, because it might help curb crimes of passion by giving people a cooling off period before they do something rash. And really, this is the type of gun violence that might actually be preventable. Madmen are much harder to prevent because they are irrational and unpredictable.
I think limiting magazines would be beneficial, but not all that beneficial. It will only help in the case of a madman who doesn't plan very well. He just loads up, heads to the mall, and empties his gun. In such an instance, it would be much better if he had only 12 rounds as opposed to 100. On the other hand, if he's a planner, all the smaller mags do is to change his tactics a little. We both know how quick and easy it is to preload replacement magazines and swap them out. Still, just for the reduction in destructive potential when someone snaps, I think the magazine limit should be done. It really isn't all that much of an inconvenience (unless you're talking about the folks who want to go down to 3 
).
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
