From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:16:47 GMT

In article <14natnINNjgt@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:


>They should have spares.  If they're so damn competitive they should dedicate
>themselves to having a few guns.  I know people who hardly ever fire their
>guns who own 6 or 7.  This is a really stupid argument.

     Guns are expensive.  No, check that.  Guns can be *very* expensive.
And I find it difficult to believe you are basing your argument on rights by 
whether they "should" dedicate themselves to something.
 
     Many people can't afforc "6 or 7" guns.  Some people can barely afford 
one.

>In addition, there are (already) special blanket permits for dealers and
>their ilk, ie professional firearms experts.  The same thing could go for
>a "professional" shooter.  If the person is an amateur, then s/he is out
>of luck, and really should have prepared better, knowing in advance of the
>seven day waiting period.

     "You should have prepared better?"

     "Why didn't you use birth control?"
 
     Similar?

     Sometimes birth control fails.  Sometimes things happen you don't 
expect.  Sometimes you need a gun today.
 
     A right is not something you should have to plan in advance for to 
exercise.

>>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.

     Can you get us crime figures on those "heat of passion/drive down to a 
store/buy a gun/drive back" killings?

>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.  

     The police a) aren't legally required to protect you, b) don't have the 
manpower to protect everyone, *especially the poor, who are least likely to 
recieve protection, and c) can't *do* anything until a crime has been 
commited.
 
     As for injunctions, do you really think anybody who like this is going 
to do anything but *laugh* at a piece of paper?  What is the victim going to 
do?  Call the police???

>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
>out."  

     The NRA does *not* hold this view.

>I'm sure most people would rather be sequestered or relocated
>than suffer through the trauma of killing another human being, not to
>mention a trial and media attention (remember the Burning Bed?).

     The police *aren't* go to sequester or relocate you based on your 
claims of having been threatened, unless you have a *lot* of money or 
political connections.

>>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.  

     We're talking about *people who obey the law*.  Are you counseling that 
someone who wants a gun should break the law to do so?  Then why bother with 
the laws in the first place?
 
     Some people obey the law.

>Obviously the waiting
>period wouldn't have been a problem there.  

     Some people obeyed the law.  I think it unjust to knowingly punish them 
for doing so.

>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.

     Explain this to me...

>>There are plenty of reasons why one might need to purchase a gun today that 
>>have nothing to do with crime.

>And most of them smack of that American crybaby ethic, "Wah, but I want
>it NOW!"

     So?  Where does the government get the authority to object?  
 
     From the same place they get the authority to object to abortions?
 
     "I want my abortion now!!!!!!!"
 
     But, then, they're different, aren't they?

>>>Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get an abortion makes zero
>>>sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.  She has done no
>>>wrong and is doing no wrong.  Who knows better than she if she wants an
>>>abortion?  Or gall bladder surgery?  Or a cap on her tooth?
>>
>>This makes as much sense a waiting period on guns.
>>
>>>Maybe you could clarify this left-field comparison of yours.
>>
>>You might say the same for a waiting period on guns.

>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.

     Gun *use*, not gun *posession*.  Simple posession threatens no-one.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:300 alt.politics.elections:8905