From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 05:46:17 GMT

In article <1496@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>>>I never said a no-firearms fight would be fair, but I would suggest
>>>that it is somewhat less likely to end with somebody being dead.  You
>>>could dispute that point, I suppose.
>
>Once again, you delete the relevant part of my post, and then make me
>sound like I'm saying that women should just "submit" to rape or
>domestic violence.  *And* cross-post to soc.women to spread the slur.

No, I didn't say you did, but I'm pointing out the downside of a
world where women were at the mercy of men. I didn't say you were
in favor of such a world.

>Once again, and for the last time ever:  my original post was an
>attempt to come up with a more plausible scenario than this one for
>a domestic violence case.
>
>Original scenario:
>
>Your sister marries an abusive man, who gets thrown in jail, is paroled,
>and comes back after her.  She is prevented from obtaining a gun by
>some mandatory waiting period.

But you invented this scenario, I didn't.

I said "a woman who has received a threat is endangered by waiting
periods." You invented a scenario where she might possibly have
warning about a danger being presented. This is less than typical.

>[Here Phil Ngai deletes some inconvenient material about my real beliefs
> about gun safety, gun sales, and my personal experiences with firearms,
> I assume because they are inconvenient for him to argue.  Particularly

Am I required to argue with everything you write? What if I think it's
a good idea for people to know what they are doing when handling
deadly weapons?

>>The NRA does promote gun safety education with free materials for
>>schools and such. (such materials contain the message "if you see a gun
>>DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT.") Many schools turn them
>>down because they are "from that nasty NRA".
>
>Then they are stupid, unless they have, say, the local police run
>similar gun safety programs.

That's the point.

>Can you really defend all of the positions they have taken on gun-related
>issues?  Many of them are totally reprehensible, in my opinion.

I'd like to hear some specifics.

>I'm not actually sure if this is true, but I don't
>remember many Supreme Court rulings overturning gun legislation on
>second ammendment grounds since I've been an adult.

There haven't been many SC hearings on firearms since the 14th
amendment, which incorporates the BOR into state laws.

Some of the ones which have taken place say that the term "people"
means the same thing in the 2nd as it does in the 1st, 4th, 9th,
and 10th amendments. (US v Verdugo-Urquidez) But of course HCI
won't tell you about that.

>>What specifically does the NRA do that you object to?  You may find that
>>some of the things you have been told are misinformation.
>
>Not bloody likely, since I did grow up in an NRA household.  Don't you

How about some details.

>find it a bit strange that local and national police groups have been
>finding themselves opposing some of the more bizarre NRA crusades

Do you think the police should get everything they want? Especially
police from countries like South Africa and Russia? (some of the police
group opposition you may have heard of are from the International
organizations)

Should we do away with search warrant requirements because the police
don't like them?

>recently?  Don't you find their blatant vote-buying (or electoral
>blackmail) a bit disturbing?  Do you really feel more safe and more free

I suppose when HCI does it, it's the will of the people but when NRA
does it, it's electoral blackmail?

You have been soaking up that HCI literature, haven't you?

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections