From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:40:14 GMT
	<1992Aug20.100242.26695@muddcs.claremont.edu>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Aug20.100242.26695@muddcs.claremont.edu> sbonds@jarthur.claremont.edu (007) writes:
<   pms@matthew.Corp.Sun.COM (Patrick Stirling) writes:

<>Wait a minute! What's this about "gun banners"? First I've heard of it. Isn't it
<>normally referred to as "gun control"? There's a difference between control and
<>ban. The general idea I've hard, and subscribe to, is along the lines:

<>	- require waiting periods between ordering and picking up a gun
<>	- more extensive id checks on gun purchasers.

<   Both of these seem reasonable to me, so long as the waiting period isn't
<   extensive.  Anything more than about two days is getting excessive in my
<   opinion.  One day is enough for a person to "cool off", and more than
<   two days is going to be a real inconvenience to people who have planned
<   hunting trips, etc. and find that the trusty ol' 30-06 just refuses to
<   work right.

	I'm sure that the folks in L.A. who lived through the
	recent excitement can tell you what's wrong with waiting
	periods.

	Since around 80% of criminals do not obtain their
	firearms through dealers, they don't adhere to 
	waiting periods; thus they are not affected by waiting
	periods.

	Since the majority of domestic homicides occur after
	10:00 at night (a time when no gun stores are open),
	the "cooling off" issue is moot.


<>I also would like to see a requirement similar to a driver's licence: some kind
<>of proof that you know how to use & care for a firearm before you buy one. 
	
	Does the drivers license prove that one knows how to
	use and care for an automobile?

<>Membership in a gun club for example. 

	Oh, I get it, you don't mind if RICH people have
	guns...

<Perhaps insurance too.

	Yep..that's what I thought.

<In some states there is a manditory state-sponsered class that everyone must
<take before purchasing archery equipment.  After the first purchase, you are
<given a license that allows you to purchase without question thereafter.  I
<would love to see something like this for firearms.  

	Why? What purpose would it serve, beyond providing
	yet another way to hassle firearms owners.

	HINT: if you are going to comment on present laws,
	it's a good idea to know what the laws are prior
	to commenting.
	
<Too many people end up
<   hurting themselves or friends through sheer carelessness.  

	How many, please? Compare the number of people injured
	in firearms accidents to the number of people injured
	in car accidents. 

	Which should be regulated more strictly, if "number
	of people injured" is the criteria for regulation?

<Funding could
<   be drawn from the price of buying a hunting license or from the cost of the
<   firearms.

<   I'd also like to see guns controlled similar to cars.  With a car, if I'm
<   on my own property I can do pretty much what I damn well please.  A license
<   is NOT needed to drive on private property, there are no speed limits, etc.
<   The logic here is that if I crash, I hurt nobody except myself and my 
<   property.  The same shoud go for gun ownership.

<   If I want to go out on my back 40 and do some target shooting, there 
<   shouldn't be any reason why I can't do it with a mortar.  Maybe I want to
<   fire off my flamethrower a couple times.  Or perhaps I'd like to do some
<   target shooting with a fully automatic Uzi.  It's my land, my targets, my
<   guns-- why should anyone tell me what I can or can't do under these
<   circumstances.  Just like the car, if I'm a psycho or an ignoramus, the only
<   person who gets hurt will be me.

	You are now more radical than the NRA. Surprised?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns