From: echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 23 Jul 1992 22:13:11 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In article <archer.157@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
>>records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 
>
>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?

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).

>>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.
>
>You are in error here.  There are thousands of people who shoot on a 
>competiative level who would be up a creek if thier firearm malfunctioned on 
>the day before the match.

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.

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.

>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.

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.  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."  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?).

>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.

>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!"

>>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.

-- 
  //          ---<--@                     -Echo
\X/                                        The Potato-Salad-Eatin' Fool.
INTERNET: echo@ucscb.ucsc.edu              AT&T: (408) 427-9814 home
                                                 (408) 431-5387 work
"It's a Man Ray kind of sky."

Paul Reed Smith is a god.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns