You have to explain why you need to take it away. It's time we started putting gun controllers in the position of answering our questions. It's time we took back our traditional dominant role of demanding to know why someone needs to control us. The assumption is that there are no grounds to oppose a proposal that does not stand in the way of a need, or more broadly, that rights are dependent upon needs. Citations of murder rates are not prima facie evidence of a need for gun control, but of crime control.
Gun control is but one proposed means.
Means require proof. Fail on either count, and I'll oppose it. The proponents have failed to prove that the means of waiting periods will work. They are so certain of the outcome of that hypothetical that they equate proposal with solution. Actually, by opposing an ineffective means, we are trying to force society to effectively addressing the problem.