From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Summary: Waiting periods do not a background check make 
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:02:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.155824.4433@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>My concern is to stop, if not all, a big chunk of gun purchases by minors,
>criminals, etc.  If a background check can be performed in, say, 20 minutes,
>then to me that is a long enough wait.  If the technology's there in terms
>of quick access to up-to-date data, great.

The NRA's concern is to stop, if not all, a big chunk of gun purchases
by minors, criminals, etc.  The NRA agrees that these groups should
by prohibited from obtaining firearms, but not at the expense of
legitimate buyers.  As for the technology, the NCIC already exists.
Andy Freeman has previously posted on how the Brady Bunch et al. is 
pushing so damn hard for their waiting period because they're aware
that the NCIC database could be available for background checks
today.  Such a system would preclude their pet waiting period,
and they know it.

>I'm unaware it is now.  I figured in lieu of that, a 7-day wait is at least
>a _start_ at allowing enough time to check someone out.  It's not gonna be
>a panacea for illegal gun purchases, no.  But again, it's a START - though
>I reiterate that the wait I mentioned is really for the purpose of a
>_background check_.  No, I see no need for a waiting period just to piss

Well, we all agree that a background check is what's important.
The NRA urged for passage of the Staggers Bill, which would have
required a background check.  The Brady Bill does NOT require
such a check.  Kind of makes you wonder what the Brady Bunch is
up to, doesn't it?  They certainly don't seem to care about
criminals getting guns, or they'd have supported the Staggers Bill.

>All those that argue a criminal can purchase a gun on the streets if he
>really wants one, I say (1) a thorough background check is _still_ going 
>to stop minors and impulse-criminals, and (2) maybe gun manufacturers

A background check will stop these groups from buying guns retail,
but will have no effect on other sources (indeed, the background
check at retail would stop about 1/6th of the sales - criminals
already don't but their guns retail).  The other sources are
subject to supply and demand.

>oughta get more responsible and manufacture only the amount of guns that
>they know will be purchased legally.  If you reply, "There's already
>millions of illegal or stolen guns out there", I say, "Just because we've
>allowed this to get so screwed up doesn't mean we lay back and accept it."

This is a fallacious argument because the total criminal consumption
of firearms for an entire year could be supplied with a few trucks.
Given our inability to interdict drugs you can't begin to even hope
that guns would be any different.  Secondly, guns are low-tech and
a zip-gun could be built for a few bucks worth of parts from the
hardware store.  The fact is, if criminals want guns, they'll get
guns.  I agree that screening for criminals may stop a few sales,
and if there's no waiting period involved its OK with me.

>I'm reminded of "Sopers" when Rorer still manufactured them (I think they
>were the same as Qaaludes, which gave kids a strong buzz).  Something
>like 14% of production went to legitimate outlets (pharmacies, hospitals);
>the other 86% went to the streets.  Now, Rorer knew what was happening.  

Turns out a surprisingly large number of weapons are stolen from
police property rooms and the national guard.  Are you going to
blame a weapons manufacturer for the army's inability to control
"inventory shrinkage?"

>I'm willing to continue this debate if my "new" position still
>displeases.  I would ask, however, that everyone remove "talk.abortion"
>from the "Newsgroup" line.

Your "new" position is actually quite similar to the NRA's.  You
should think about joining the NRA - call 1-800-368-5714 MasterCard
and Visa accepted.

Drew 
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Organization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA