A waiting period has strong initial appeal. The tradeoffs appear positive: relatively small costs in exchange for significant gains in public safety. Advocates of the waiting period use the John Hinckley case as a symbol and point to public opinion surveys, criminological studies, and State experience. However, the proposed law would not have halted the purchase of the gun used to shoot President Reagan and Secretary Brady. Polling results are flawed and mixed. No criminologist has demonstrated that waiting periods are effective. Finally, California and other States with waiting periods have only a miniscule arrest rate and widespread unfairness to law-abiding citizens. However, waiting periods clearly have negative impacts on citizens' ability to rely on police protection or protect themselves. Alternatives to waiting periods include a Virginia-style instant telephone check on the purchaser's background, the creation of a firearms owner identification card, or adding a person's fingerprint to a computerized driver's license. However, criminals could evade these alternatives and create serious risks of privacy violations. Ultimately, both practicality and constitutionality are best served by strategies that focus on the underground market where most criminals obtain most of their guns. Illustrations and reference lists