From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:50:29 GMT

>But you're right.  Anyone who really, really wants a gun can probably get
>it.  But what the waiting period attempts to do is stop people like
>David Chapman and John Hinckley, who walked into gun shops and minutes
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hold on thar bobalooy (sp?). Hinkley bought his gun long before he used
it and there was nothing in his background that would have prevented the
purchase even if the brady bill had been in place (and the did the
background check which is not required by the brady bill).

>later came out with the guns they used to kill John Lennon and attempt
>to kill Ronald Reagan (oh, if only I could switch that around).

>This is a problem that perhaps the waiting period is designed for.  By
>preventing the abusive spouse from running out and buying a gun and
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I doesn't happen that way. Some facts.

1. Most domestic killings are commited in households where police have
had repeated calls for domestic disputes. If he needs a gun to kill her
he can wait and just kill her later.

2. Who needs a gun for that? Knive, bolling ball, skillet, pillow...
take your choice.

3. There is no evidence of the scenario you propose actually happening in
any significant way.

4. Most "crimes of passion" occur at night after the gun stores close.
If he is still angry in the morning when the store opens he will only be
more angry next week.

>killing the other person in the heat of passion, that person now has
>to wait seven days.

>OK, let's assume that the abusive spouse already has a weapon, or chooses
>to commit havoc by another means.  This is what police protection and
>injunctions are for.  I'll admit that these methods are not what they
>should be, but (being the bleeding heart that I am) I think there should
>be more emphasis on it.  As opposed to the NRA line of "Let 'em fight it

And how many wemon are you willing to sacrifice while you try to fix
the system. Police protection...HA! Tell that to the three women who
were raped for 14 hours after "just calling 911".

>out."  I'm sure most people would rather be sequestered or relocated
>than suffer through the trauma of killing another human being, not to

Speak for yourself. If you want to make that decision for yourself fine
but quit trying to force your decision on the rest of the world.

>mention a trial and media attention (remember the Burning Bed?).

In a civilized society clear cut cases of self defense would never
come to trial and in those that did the state would pay all legal
fees and possibly other compensation.

>What's your point?  People that wanted guns those days in LA had only to
>bust into the front of the store and take one.  Obviously the waiting
>period wouldn't have been a problem there.  People that already had guns

Not for the criminals. BUT LAW ABIDING PEOPLE DON'T GO AROUND LOOTING
GUN SHOPS!!!!

>were a threat, people that didn't were threatened.  But in no way did this

No they weren't! The looters and gang members were a threat whether or
not they had guns. Lots of folks had guns and were not a threat. OWNING
AND CARRYING WEAPONS DOES NOT MAKE ONE A THREAT. VIOLENT ACTIONS MAKE
ONE A THREAT. Remember that truck driver was not shot. I guess those
four men were not a threat since they didn't have guns.

>affect anyone's prospects of shooting or getting shot at.

Not having a gun definitely can affect whether you get shot.

>I understanfd both sides take on the waiting period for abortion, and I'm
>ambivalent about it myself.  However, the two are not really related.  One
>restricts a right that is based on a personal right to privacy (as interpreted
>by the Supreme Court; don't give me that wash about "Where in the Constitution
>blah blah blah"), whereas  guns tend to be very intrusive in other peoples
>lives.  Just ask the Brady the bill is named after.

Well at risk of getting into this abortion thing again the right to
keep and bear arms is certainly more clearly spell out than the right to
terminate ones child.

Guns are intrusive you say. Well then we better start disarming the cops
and SS agents and militry. What did you say? Oh they don't use them to
commit crimes you say. Well even if that were true I don't either. So why
are so intent on trampling my rights?

Bottom line. Waiting periods (and most so call gun control laws) don't work
and they infringe on the rights of the law abiding. They endanger innocent
people and handicap the militia.

				mike
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:904 alt.politics.perot:1113 alt.politics.marrou:236 talk.politics.guns:18082