From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:38:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.215329.22501@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  
dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes (  
Steve Novak) writes:
> >>Does this mean you have no problem with a mere 24-hour waiting period
> >>before a woman could get an abortion?
> >
> >Apples and oranges being compared - and you know it full well, Ngai.
> 
> Apples and oranges?  Why should a waiting period, regardless of which
> right it infringes, be judged as anything but an infringement?  
> 
> >Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with  
criminal
> >records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have  
guns. 
> 
> Criminal checks using NCIC would take minutes, not the seven days the
> Brady Bunch would like you to believe.  Waiting periods are designed
> to harass gun owners (please tell me the value of making someone
> who owns 5 firearms wait seven days), drive up further the cost of
> guns (by eliminating the gun show discounts), and to set the stage
> for tort-law gun bans (the Brady Bunch has stated that they'll sue
> any police chief who OKs a background check on an individual who
> later commits murder - remember, the Brady Bull does NOT require
> a background check but unless the local chief "signs OK" the 
> sale cannot go through.  In such a climate, its easy to envision 
> chiefs refusing to OK any applications at all).

	I don't know if this is uniformly true; but in Pennsylvania
	with a 72 hour wait, about 1/3rd of the guns for which
	the wait is applied are never picked up.

	Whether this is good or bad and whether it is a hidden
	intent of the waiting period supporters remains to be
	seen.
> 
> >Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
> >goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun  
immediately.
> >
> Tell that to the citizens of Los Angeles, where "protesters" were
> burning and looting and the chicken-shit cops ran away. 
> 
> Interestingly, the issue of domestic violence is never addressed by
> the Brady Bunch et al.  Sure, you'll often hear their tripe "A gun
> is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or acquaintence
> than a burglar."  But the Brady Bunch is intentionally lying in
> three ways: First, that number 43 does not appear to have any
> basis in the UCRs or the NCSs. [etc. deleted]

the 43-1 ratio is based on King County (Seattle) Washington
over a period of about 5 years.  It is simply a direct comparison
of with-gun suicides, criminal homicides and accidental deaths
in homes compared to with-gun legal defensive homicides in homes.
The method of determining legal defensive homicides was potentially
flawed so as to underestimate the true number.  (To determine if
understatement actually occurred would require reviewing stacks
of case documentation.)

The authors found the following ratio: ~43-1
of the 43:  37 were suicides, 4.6 were homicides, and
1.3 were accidents.

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns