From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:46:25 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1ii89nINNn9d@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <9301051952.18@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>> A friend of mine got his sporting license 3 years ago.  He joined a gun
>> club for less than $100 per year, got the three references, and was given
>> a permit.  No hassle.
>
>So you approve of policies that restrict gun ownership to the relatively
>well-off.

I don't see $100 per year as excessive.

>> >>>My wife is stalled on her permit because all of the people she's known
>> >>>for any length of time in the area are anti-gun.
>> >>
>> >>That's life.
>> >
>> >No, that's injustice, ethically bankrupt, and a direct and immediate 
>> >violation of her Constitutionally protected civil liberties.
>> 
>> The government doesn't tell her how to pick her friends.
>
>It's none of the government's business who your friends are.

Your're right.  It's a poor attempt at determining a person's state
of mind and/or standing with other people.

>> >>>> The police would like to know who has guns.
>> >>>
>> >>>Probably so; but since having a gun isn't a crime, it's frankly none
>> >>>of their damn business.
>> 
>> Unless they are criminals or are on parole.
>
>No, wrong.  The police would like to know if an ex-felon is BUYING
>a gun, and that I will grant.  If they fail at that, they will never 
>know if an ex-felon HAS a gun, because he has evaded their check.  

True, if the ex-felon buys an illegal gun.

>And though I am resigned to being checked at sale time to see if I am 
>an ex-felon, I maintain that after I have passed that check, the police 
>have no need to know that I HAVE a gun, because it's none of their
>damn business.

Mostly true.

>Note that even the Brady Bill requires the police chief to destroy 
>all records of purchase if the purchaser checks out clean.  Meanwhile,
>a few anal-retentive states like Massachusetts still think they have 
>to keep a pin-map of every firearm in the state.

That's interesting.  So the Brady Bill isn't interested in using serial
numbers on guns to find out who owned it last, when it was used in the
commission of a homicide?

>> The local paper here reports arrests, which are a matter of public record.
>
>All arrests?  Don't say yes, because it's provably false.  It serves
>MY town too, but doesn't report all the arrests in my town.  No paper
>does.

Then the cops in Framingham are _very_ busy.

>> In MAssachusetts, you are more likely to have someone break into your home,
>> than have someone threaten to shoot you on the street.
>
>Maybe if you sit in an air-conditioned computer lab all day.  If you
>work in a shelter, or a tavern, or a welfare office, or on a road crew,
>your mileage WILL vary.

I guess you're right about that.  I was ribbed at gunpoint when I used to
drive a cab in college.

>> Perhaps I've been lucky, but I haven't been through experiences that would
>> make me want to carry a gun at all times, except when I lived in Boston.
>
>...which is about the hardest place in the state to get exactly that kind
>of "permission."  Sorta makes "Massachusetts-sense," doesn't it?

There aren't many large, densely populated cities where it is easy to get
a gun.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns