From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:00:01 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <14natnINNjgt@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU
(Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:
>>No, they don't.  Anyone wanting a firearm for an illegal purpose is not 
>>going to purchase it through legal channels, nor sit our the waiting 
>>period.  Waiting periods are ONLY useful as a harassment tool for law-
>>abiding gun owners.
>
>Funny, then, isn't it that this the exact same reasoning that I use to
>justify the legalization of drugs, but conservatives alwaysd think I'm
>an idiot?  Anyone wanting to buy drugs will get them right?

Hey, I'm in favor of legalization myself.

>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
>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).

Nope, wrong.  Hinckley would not have been prevented from buying a gun
by either a waiting period OR a background check.  He had never been
judged insane and he had no felony record.

>>So would the woman who started getting death threats from her abusive ex-
>>spouse.
>
>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
>killing the other person in the heat of passion, that person now has
>to wait seven days.

Her spouse doesn't need a gun to use in killing her.  Unless she's a
martial arts expert or gets lucky, he can probably kill her with his
bare hands.  On the other hand, a gun WOULD provide her the edge that
keeps her alive.

>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. 

Numerous cases have come up, where a person sues his/her city for failing
to respond in time to prevent a criminal attack.  The cases ALWAYS end
up with the court deciding that the police have no duty to protect
individuals.  If the police don't get there in time, should the victim
simply give up?

>>So was the entire city of Los Angeles while the police stood by and let 
>>chaos reign.
>
>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
>were a threat, people that didn't were threatened.  But in no way did this
>affect anyone's prospects of shooting or getting shot at.

You're saying that people who feared for their lives should have looted
sporting goods stores, become criminals and risked being shot by the
National Guard???????

>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.

Personally, I consider guns to be morally neutral.  They can be used for
legitimate self defense reasons just as well as they can be used to
harm innocent people.  But restricting people from having access to guns
for self defense purposes will not prevent those innocent people from
being hurt!

    don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To quote James Wright:
    "Indeed, I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for "stricter
    gun control" cannot be made, at least not on empirical grounds.  I have
    nothing but respect for the various pro-gun control advocates with whom
    I have come in contact over the past years.  They are, for the most part,
    sensitive, humane and intelligent people, and their ultimate aim, to
    reduce death and violence in our society, is one that every civilized
    person must share.  I have, however, come to be convinced that they are
    barking up the wrong tree."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections