From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:38:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: University of California, San Diego

Boy, do people ever jump to conclusions around here.

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>>I think a more typical example is that your sister marries an abusive
>>man who beats her, is arrested and charged, makes bail, buys a
>>shotgun, shoots her and then himself.  Domestic violence is a big,
>
>Of course, we know that if he couldn't buy a shotgun (which I have
>never seen proposed as the subject of ANY gun restrictions), he'd
>be totally unable to do her any harm. Women are so much stronger
>than men, as long as it's a "fair", "no guns allowed", kind of
>fight, aren't they?

Well, you deleted the article I was responding to, which is too bad,
because all I was saying was that *this* scenario was more likely than
one where the man goes to jail, and is then paroled while his
(ex?)wife just twiddles her thumbs.

I mentioned shotguns precisely because they have never been proposed
for gun restrictions, since I know very well you can get killed just
as easily (or more easily in some cases) by a shotgun then, say, a .22
caliber revolver.

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.

>>serious problem in this country, but I don't see how a lack of some
>>reasonable waiting period is costing us more lives than it could save.
>
>Try these ideas:
>
>Women almost never initiate violence.
>Men already have all the "ARMS" they need to commit violence
>against women.

How does this help things?  Or are you suggesting a complete ban on
firearms sales to men?  That would be novel, but I wouldn't support
it.  What I *do* support is a ban on sales of any firearm to anyone
who cannot prove their proficiency with that firearm on a range, and
to anyone who hasn't passed an approved firearms safety course.  I
also support a waiting period for the purchase of firearms and the
registration of firearms, for a variety of reasons.

>>(Which doesn't mean that many times, the guns are already in the
>>house, ready to be used against against some friend or family member.)
>
>Typical victim of HCI propaganda, doesn't understand the true category
>is "family, friends, and acquaintances", where acquaintances include
>people like rival drug dealers. 

No, I do understand this.  But I also know that guns are much less
likely to be used against intruders or strangers.  And that this is
particularly true when the owners don't know what the hell they are
doing.  In my experience, most of them don't, and this goes double for
their children.

>Also probably doesn't realize that violent criminals have families 
>and friends too, but just because they kill their f&f doesn't mean 
>JKING would any more than JKING is likely to rob a bank.

As I'm sure you would agree, violent criminals are, well, violent, and
likely to obtain guns no matter what you do.  And you're right: I
think I'm extremely unlikely to kill anybody or rob a bank.  But that
doesn't mean you couldn't do a much, much better job in preventing the
appallingly large number of gun homicides that do *not* involve
convicted criminals and their acquaintances or encounters between
strangers.

There's no way I want to get any deeper into this morass at this point,
and I've pointed follow-ups to talk.politics.guns.  But I guess I do
want to make the following statement.

My dad was at one time a Marine Corps captain, a Distinguished Expert
in BOTH rifle and pistol, and an alternate to the 1952 US Olympic
team.  He had one heck of an impressive medal collection, and he may
well have fired more shots in his life than everybody else reading
this post put together.  He was also an incredible safety nut.  He
would quiz us constantly on what we were to do if we found a gun lying
around anywhere, and when we were old enough, he showed us how to make
a variety of guns "safe" (no, not by using the "safety").  He taught
us how to shoot pistols and rifles, and when I was old enough, I
joined an NRA-sponsored Junior Rifle Club, where I eventually lost
interest in it after completing something like six or seven "bars"
between Sharpshooter and Expert.  (Why?  Well, I wasn't a particularly
good shot, particularly after I lost my coach.  So it goes.)

Since that time, I've come to find out that many people who own guns
(including friends and, alas, some family) don't have the remotest
clue about what they are doing with them, but don't know it.  This is
unsafe, and unacceptable to me.  Unfortunately, I have also decided
that the NRA is much more interested in promoting its weird gun policy
objectives than in making people safe shooters, or insuring that only
qualified people get to own them.  But what to do?  The present
situation is unacceptable, and while many of the alternatives are also
unpleasant, I can't justify the extension of the second amendment from
a "well-regulated militia" to the whole of the current group of
gun-owners without some major changes.

There.  Now I feel a little less steamed.

jking
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1110 talk.politics.guns:18373