From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: A Brady Bill Debate
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:24:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.103146.9039@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> romigr@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
>My co-worker is a member of PETA and I am a member of the NRA and
>North American Hunt Club.  We usually have some very interesting
>debates at work with the hunt,gun issues. One thing we DO is debate
>not argue and try to come up with a solution to a given problem.
>	
>	While talking about gun control ,ie Brady Bill, he made a 
>suggestion that I could go along with and am interested in hearing
>opinions from both sides on this.
>	
>	We both agree that crime control is a must and dealing with
>violent criminals(40yrs armed robbery,death if you shoot etc) must 
>take place at the same time as ANY gun control measures or gun
>control would be useless.

Why can't crime control take place _without_ the gun control
measures?  It seems as if you and your co-worker agree that
gun control alone won't reduce crime.  But crime control with
gun control will reduce crime.  Reminds me of the old saying
"that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee", meaning "that"
is worth nothing.

What leads you to believe that the gun control isn't useless
as a means of controlling crime?

>	
>	I am opposed to the Brady Bill as written as I don't think it
>will reduce handgun crime(criminals won't wait and can get weapons from
>sources other than dealers). I can live with a Staggers bill calling
>for an instant background check as myself and co-worker both want to
>stop felons etc. from obtaining guns from the dealer.
>	
>	With the subject of the "wait period" I questioned the cooling
>off idea and think at most it might save 1-12 lives,in other words on
>a national level not that many. Then my co-worker said how about a 5 day

Or, it may cost a few lives.  We really don't know.  And still, it
takes away your ability to have a say in the matter of which side
of the ledger your life will show up.

>wait for first time handgun buyers. We both agree that in the crime of
>passion the person has a gun they won't run to the store, they will
>most likely use one they have. 

Most "crimes of passion" occur between 10 PM and 4 AM.  Try to find a
gun store open at that time!  Most "crimes of passion" are committed
by persons with prior violent histories.

Even when that isn't the case, how much would your "passion" 
dissipate when you have to get in your car, drive to a gun
store, look over the stock, buy a gun, fill out the forms, buy
ammo, load the gun, drive back home, etc., etc.?  Could one
still commit a "crime of passion" after all that?  Sounds
pre-meditated to me ...

[snip]

>	I am all for safety, and a firearm saftey course provision for
>first time buyers might be worked out but this is another issue.

I would prefer a firearm safety course for _all_ people, perhaps
given in high school, regardless of whether they might eventually
purchase a firearm.  

>	Being a firearm buff and a believer in the second amendment I
>don't like the thought of gun control, but have to admit that the crime
>in the streets, cities, parks, houses, etc. must be stopped. Crime control
>(death sentence for shooting in a robbery attempt, kidnapping, kill someone
>in the commission of a felony, 40yrs for armed robbery[I know jails are full]
>death for repeat violent offenders) we both agree is a must today if we are
>to let the criminal know we wont tolerate this sh#% anymore!!!

Fine.  What's that got to do with gun control?

>	This is by no means a solution to the crime with guns problem, but
>might be a step to start from. If a bill like ours goes to DC I hope it 
>would stop the rest of the ban'em, buy'em, regester'em, repeal the second,
>bills that won't affect the criminal and just harass me. I know that the
>Sara Brady types won't rest till guns (except their bodyguards) are banned.
>	
>	My co-worker and I also know that Sara is extreem and most people
>on both sides of the fence might use the word compromise in letting there
>groups know how they feel. I don't want a compromise that gives up my rights
>but am willing to be inconvienced and listed (shudder) if that with there
>get tough on crime let me keep my guns compromise does some good.

A compromise involves getting something in return.  What is offered
by the pro-restriction crowd?  Letting them have their way, even
"a little", with nothing in return is simply appeasement.

>	I hope readers of this group respond to this from both sides to get
>a feel if something can be done that will hit the criminal scumbucket.
>
>			RDR NRA/ILA/NAHC/USMC

					Dave Schabel


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Schabel         | Opinions and comments contained herein are mine and  |
schabel@calspan.com  | do not necessarilly reflect those of Calspan Corp or |
                     | its customers.                                       |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns