From: gharlane@nextnet.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore)
Subject: A few thoughts (was: Assault Weapons)
Followup-To: alt.dev.null
Summary: a couple hundred lines of medium-hot air
Keywords:  logic, constitutional rights, emotional furor
Organization: Very Danged Little
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:07:28 GMT

Comments to the "Lizard" and Murray:

<< I'm including many of their comments, not because I'm a cascade 
   freak, but because they're both well-meaning and cogent, 
   and it makes more sense this way. >>

> Newsgroups: alt.pagan
> From: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
> Subject: Assault Weapons [Was: a few words about election results]
> Organization: California State University Sacramento
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:32:46 GMT
> 
> In <gate.2gi1TB1w165w@pil.UUCP> alizard@pil.UUCP writes:
> > >
> > > From: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
> > > Subject: Re: A Few Words About Election Results
> > > 
> > > to no avail. The Democratic platform does not call for a ban on
> > > handguns, only a ban on assault weapons. I have yet to hear a
> > > rational argument on why a private citizen should be allowed an
> > > assault weapon. The other part is a waiting period. Do you have

   Main reason is that "assault weapons" is a term very difficult 
   to define.  Most of our current "sporting weapons" were military
   "assault weapons" at one time.
 
   Did  you know that there was a movement to ban civilian sales of
   brass cartridges, less than a century ago?  It was felt that no
   honest person had any need for a gun more dangerous than a 
   "caplock?"  (this is a kind of percussion-cap detonating system
   that sometimes used pre-measured, paper-cartridge ammunition.)

   This kind of attitude ignores the fact that we are constitutionally
   enfranchised to keep and bear arms to resist GROUPS, whether
   they are elected, or simply take over a neighborhood....
   That's what a "militia" is for.  It's a volunteer defensive 
   organization, not a part of the military.
   But to be effective, a "militia" (or a free citizen) must have 
   access to weapons that give him or her a chance to survive 
   an armed confrontation, thus providing an incentive to 
   avoid such confrontations. 

> > > a big problem with a one week waiting period? Just can't wait to
> > > kill someone? There has been no mention of a complete ban on handguns
> > > anywhere, except maybe the ranting of some  NRA lobbyists.

   Absolutely incorrect.  Complete bans on private ownership of 
   weapons have been proposed in several states, and made it as 
   far as state legislatures on several occasions.  Think of New
   York's Sullivan Act; in NY City, if you have a gun you inherited
   from your grand-dad in your house, and shoot a burglar who
   broke into your house and is threatening you with HIS gun,
   YOU go to jail.  (This happened to a friend of mine, who
   actually served time in prison during the appeals procedure.)
   (Despite this, NY City has one of the highest per capita gun 
    crime rates in the country, so we know how well it works.)

   So it's nothing to do with the NRA.  There are *always* people
   running for office who will tout a platform plank of "No Guns!"
   I've been watching them in action for nearly half a century now.
   A number of them have developed quite a following among the people
   who are stupid enough to believe in easy solutions to things.  
   ("Make all the nasty guns be gone, and no one will break laws or 
     burglarize your house any more.  Rapes will cease, and no one 
     will be addicted to drugs, so they won't need to commit crimes.")

   One of our new state senators subscribed to this incredible idiocy
   when still a San Francisco mayor, even trying to spearhead a 
   volunteer program to get citizens to turn in their guns to the 
   police and turning in a small revolver to set a good example.
   On the basis of past experience with "anti-gun" politicians, 
   it's not that she doesn't approve of people having guns, it's that
   she doesn't approve of people besides her and her ilk having guns;
   I'd be *real* surprised if that was the only gun in their house.

   Even more than hypocrisy, I don't like being thought so stupid I'll
   buy the crud that con artists like her peddle.  As a politician,
   *SHE* can get a concealed weapons permit.   As a politician, in a 
   rich neighborhood, *she* can get police response time under five 
   minutes.   Where I live, if I call the police and report someone 
   shooting at my house... well, it took thirty minutes to get a squad car
   the last time the dopers down the street had a "business discussion"
   with some of their associates.  (Among the reasons I advise friends 
   not to become California residents.)

> > As for assault weapons... I think it's time to find out what people are
> > being hysterical about, the descriptions of the power of assault weapons
> > I've seen around here look like science fiction death rays, not any
> > product of Kalashnikov, Colt, or any other firearms company I ever
> > heard of. So before you discuss why people should or should not own
> > assault rifles, define the damn term?

   On the basis of current California law, the only thing that really 
   seems to differentiate an "assault weapon" is:  Some Legislator 
   Thought It Looked Really Ugly.   The current assault-weapons ban 
   lists a flock of specific weapons, because they knew they couldn't 
   get away with a mass ban on a TYPE of weapon, when they didn't 
   know enough about weapons to figure out a definable difference 
   between a semi-auto hunting rifle and an army-surplus M-16.....
   (There really isn't much difference except the material of the stock.)
   They had to pass SOMETHING to make it look like they were doing 
   something, if they wanted to keep the anti-gun vote, so they did.
   Even the toothless, ridiculous law they DID manage to get passed is
   being roundly ignored; remember when they extended the "grace period"
   for registration of weapons on the list, because research showed
   less than one owner in twenty had bothered to comply with the law?

   One source assures me that, to date, there have been more convictions
   for possession by persons with no prior record (or apparent criminal
   intent) than there have been of actual criminals.  (note:  I have 
   *not* personally verified this, so don't quote it as fact without
   doing some checking.)
    
   A law that cannot be enforced is like Prohibition or the "blue laws" 
   that specify what consenting adults may or may not do in the privacy
   of their own homes.... it's like the 55 MPH speed limit that was 
   slapped on the nation by executive mandate.   An unenforceable law 
   does nothing but generate more disrespect for the law.

> > Waiting period... if you or a loved one ever get a death threat based
> > on your religion or for any other reason, you will suddenly discover

   If you get a real death threat for *ANY* reason, call the police 
   and get it written into a formal incident report.  You can't 
   prosecute over a threat, because it's your word against his, 
   and you'll spend kilobucks paying some lawyer to argue with 
   the threatener's lawyer; but if you get a few complaints on 
   the books, you WILL have sufficient basis for seeking a court
   order restraining the guy from being anywhere on or around 
   your property; and if an armed confrontation should ever occur,
   you will have established a history of threats from HIM, which
   will be a big help in court.

> > why I don't support a waiting period. (matter of fact, that's how I
> > became a gun owner) 
> >
> > Statements supporting outlawing of private gun ownership from
> > NRA members are generally direct quotes from prominent members
> > of anti-gun organizations.

   Dead on.

> > / blessings... /  A.Lizard
> 
> A.Lizard, (is your first name Al?)
> I hope I'm not sounding hysterical. I have no particular belief
> in the death ray theory. As discussed at some length in my earlier
> post, I have a problem with two parts of "assault weapons": those
> that are automatic weapons (or are easily modified to be automatic),
> and large magazine capacity. Neither are necessary for hunting, nor
> are appropriate for defensive purposes in an urban environment.

 Don't count on it.   On at least a couple occasions in my life, I
 stayed alive solely because I happened to be carrying a semi-automatic 
 pistol and be competent in its use.  When you're faced with a GROUP
 of armed scum, unless you're as fast as greased lightning, a 
 revolver simply won't do the job.   If I hadn't been carrying a 
 nice old Model 1911A-1 Colt, I'd have gotten killed. 

 Interestingly, in the twenties and thirties, the Colt .45 was
 called a "Military Weapon" and an "Army Pistol," because it was
 felt that it was "too much gun" for civilian use, or home
 defense.  Now, with .44 Magnums abounding, it's usually belittled.

 I have reluctantly come to the attitude that larger magazine 
 capacity is desirable, despite the fact that I am a high-precision
 shooter.   I used to feel that anyone who needs more than 7 or 8
 rounds just needs to spend a lot more time on the firing range.
 Now I feel that a 13-round magazine is a rock-bottom minimum for
 a home defense pistol in most California urban environments. 

 (As for not needing high-capacity weaponry for hunting, I'm 
  not a hunter, so my opinion isn't necessarily valid; but I
  can tell you about an old, sick silvertip grizzly who didn't
  even *notice* eight .45 rounds and a flock of 30-06 ammo....
  and would have had me for person-burgers if one old dude who
  was there hadn't insisted on bringing along a "small" elephant
  gun, a .45-90, "just in case" --- and been able to use it fast.
  This entry's far too long already; suffice it that the old
  bear who attacked our camp dressed out at over 800 pounds, and
  firmly convinced me there is NO SUCH THING as "too much gun,"
  although a .50 machine gun might have been about right.)

> And yes, I do understand how a death threat can "necessitate" an
> immediate purchase -- in my current relationship the possibility
> of a previous violent partner is a possibility, and I assume he
> is armed.   Waiting a week would be difficult. 

 It might be a REAL good idea; if you're not a gun owner already,
 chances are that your experience is insufficient to operate a 
 pistol effectively in a stress situation.   My advice is to spend
 time on a firing range, both you *and* your S.O., before buying 
 a pistol.  In the meantime, invest in good door locks and a
 baseball bat, or buy a short (but legal-length) shotgun.
 And learn to use IT, and cultivate the psychological attitude 
 that you are WILLING to fire it off inside your own house.  
 You have to be willing to SHOOT the mutha when it's appropriate,
 or it'll just get taken away from you, or get you shot.

 But make sure you don't shoot him until after he's kicked in
 the door and come inside and threatened your lives or health.
 This can be risky, but under California laws, YOU are guilty of
 armed assault if you shoot someone for just being on your porch
 and threatening you; you have to be certain that your life is in
 immediate danger.

> But on the other hand, if I piss off my neighbor, he can go down to the
> store, buy a gun and come back home and shoot me. All in one afternoon.
> This of course assuming that he doesn't already own a gun. Here in 
> Sacramento we have shootings every few days. In Los Angeles it happens 

  No one in Sacramento *or* Los Angeles can legally go down to a gun 
  store and buy a pistol and take it home right then, unless he is 
  "personally known" to the gun dealer, or a sworn law enforcement 
  officer vouches for him in writing.   Most gun dealers in the  
  Great & Glorious State Of California are so terrorized that they 
  won't let their own mothers have a gun on the day it's paid for.
  Fifteen days is the standard waiting period.
 
  Of course, if the buyer is not concerned with legality, he can go
  to any of the *IL*legal gun dealers and take immediate possession.
  Your average felon really doesn't care if he commits an extra 
  felony prior to the assault or the crime.  Due to the economy
  of scarcity created by the silly gun laws in California ....
  there are a great many illegal dealers who will sell you 
  anything you want, if you have the money.
   (In a state with reasonable gun laws, illegal gun dealers are
    extremely rare; there isn't enough business to support them, 
    and it's easier to track weapons through sales records.  Truth.)

  Just be aware of the fact that you *will* be committing a
  prosecutable felony if you buy a gun in California without
  going through all the paperwork with a legal dealer.
   (Free advice:  Do NOT do this.  If you need a gun that badly,
   and don't want to mess with California paperwork, just move
   to Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, New Hampshire, or somewhere
   equally civil; and chances are, you won't need or want a gun
   in any of those states, because most of the populace is armed
   and reasonably peaceful!.. but if you do, you won't have to 
   register your finger prints and dental charts to get the state's
   gracious permission to own a hand weapon.)

> even more frequently. I think the problem most people have is that
> gangs have access to military-style semi- and automatic weapons, and
> as these are hardly necessary for home defense, a lot of us would like
> to see these weapons taken off the streets. 
>  / Blessings,  / Murray

 Speak for  yourself, sir; most of the "lot of us" with whom I'm 
 acquainted understand that, in a self-defense situation that requires
 the use of a gun, the object is to get the other guy Shuffled Off
 To The Summerland *before* he can hurt you or anyone else.  
 Efficiency in this endeavor is *not* served by crippling oneself
 at the outset with an outclassed weapon.  I regard a semi-automatic
 pistol of at least 9mm caliber, with a 13-round magazine, as the 
 bare minimum in a home-defense weapon.

 Gangs will *always* have access to high-power weapons.  This is historical
 fact, and passing laws and punishing non-criminals will not change it.  
 
 As an example, consider the "Pederson Device."  It was a gismo invented at
 the end of WW-I that converted a standard military rifle to a full-automatic
 bullet sprayer.   The consensus was that it was too terrible a weapon to
 turn loose on the world, so all models of the P.D. were destroyed (except
 for a couple that got tucked away under high security at places like 
 the Smithsonian, and old man Pederson's basement....)

 But there was this guy named Thompson, who started thinking about using 
 the ammunition that had been invented for the Colt 1911A-1 .45 pistol in
 a new kind of gun, an automatically-repeating thing that would spray ammo
 like a hose.  The Thompson became the terror weapon, the Uzi, of the '30s.
 
 Do you know what the first major market for the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun 
 was?   ORGANIZED CRIME.   The folks who were getting filthy rich on 
 smuggling booze during Prohibition.   (After having helped *START* 
 Prohibition in the first place, by donating to Prohibitionist candidates,
 but that's another story... create an economy of scarcity, and you can
 get filthy rich just supplying the market.)

 We live in a technological society.  It is NOT illegal to own a garage 
 full of machine tools, and any half-tailed machinist can make a gun in 
 a few hours.    GUNS ARE NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. 
 
 Making them illegal just creates a bigger market, and a situation where
 any punk with a gun feels special, because he thinks he's got something
 no one else does, that gives him an edge and puts him in charge. 
 
 In TWENTY-FIVE STATES in this country, it's legal to go into a gun 
 store, buy a gun (if you're not an ex-felon!), strap it on, and walk
 down the street.   Coincidentally, those same twenty-five states are 
 the states with the lowest per capita homicide rates (with any weapon),
 and the states with the lowest per-capita crimes against persons and 
 property.  
 
 I continue to suspect there is a connection.

 Please bear in mind that:
 I do not hunt with anything but a camera, and have never shot any living
               thing for pleasure or sport.
 I do not own any weapon which violates California statutes;
 I do not own a weapon with a magazine capacity higher than 13 rounds;
 I do not own anything that even remotely *looks* like an assault rifle;
 I do not own an automatic weapon; and

 I am not a member of the NRA.
 
 .....but I'm sure as heck thinking about joining.