From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:08:52 GMT

In article <14natnINNjgt@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame  
uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:
> 
> In article <archer.157@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)  
writes:
> >In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes (  
Steve Novak) writes:
> >>Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with  
criminal
> >>records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have  
guns. 
> >
> >No, they don't.  Anyone wanting a firearm for an illegal purpose is not 
> >going to purchase it through legal channels, nor sit our the waiting 
> >period.  Waiting periods are ONLY useful as a harassment tool for law-
> >abiding gun owners.
> 
> Funny, then, isn't it that this the exact same reasoning that I use to
> justify the legalization of drugs, but conservatives alwaysd think I'm
> an idiot?  Anyone wanting to buy drugs will get them right?

	I'm not a conservative.  I don't think you're an idiot
	as long as you apply valid reasoning in a consistent manner.
 
> But you're right.  Anyone who really, really wants a gun can probably  
get
> it.  But what the waiting period attempts to do is stop people like
> David Chapman and John Hinckley, who walked into gun shops and minutes
> later came out with the guns they used to kill John Lennon and attempt
> to kill Ronald Reagan (oh, if only I could switch that around).

	I believe Hawaii, where Chapman bought his guns, already
	had stricter gun control (waiting period or police permits)
	although I'm not positive on that one.  A waiting period
	would have done nothing to stop Hinckley unless a lengthy
	invasive investigation was done.  Even so, he already
	owned other firearms.  If he had used one of the .38's
	he owned, rather than the Rolm .22, Reagan, Brady, Delahanty
	and McCarthy would have been much more likely to have not
	survived.

> 
> >>Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
> >>goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun  
immediately.
> >
> >You are in error here.  There are thousands of people who shoot on a 
> >competiative level who would be up a creek if thier firearm  
malfunctioned on 
> >the day before the match.
> 
> They should have spares.  If they're so damn competitive they should  
dedicate
> themselves to having a few guns.  I know people who hardly ever fire  
their
> guns who own 6 or 7.  This is a really stupid argument.

If they already own 6 or 7 guns what good does a waiting period do?

 
> >So would the woman who started getting death threats from her abusive  
ex-
> >spouse.
> 
> This is a problem that perhaps the waiting period is designed for.  By
> preventing the abusive spouse from running out and buying a gun and
> killing the other person in the heat of passion, that person now has
> to wait seven days.

I used to help an acquaintance with a local funeral home and 
the coroner's office in taking bodies to Louisville for 
post-mortem.  I observed several autopsies.  Four were women who had been  
the victims of homicide.  One was stabbed.  Two were strangled.  One
was smothered (boyfriend tied her to a chair and wrapped her head in  
plastic). None were shot.

This is, of course, anecdotal.  Three were killed by larger, more  
physically powerful males.  One was murdered by two females (her roommates
strangled her). Females are often already vulnerable whether the
male has a gun or not.  At least one of the four, a woman
strangled by a home intruder, might have been able to save her
life if she could have confronted him with a gun.    

> OK, let's assume that the abusive spouse already has a weapon, or  
chooses
> to commit havoc by another means.  This is what police protection and
> injunctions are for.  I'll admit that these methods are not what they
> should be, but (being the bleeding heart that I am) I think there should
> be more emphasis on it.  As opposed to the NRA line of "Let 'em fight it
> out."  I'm sure most people would rather be sequestered or relocated
> than suffer through the trauma of killing another human being, not to
> mention a trial and media attention (remember the Burning Bed?).

I don't think the NRA line is "let 'em fight it out." You're right,
however, that police protection and injunctions are not what they
should be.  Because of this, sometimes it is necessary to defend
oneself rather than count on an assailant to obey an injunction
or wait for the police to arrive.

Some people think it is quite moral and proper to stand your
ground in the face of threats rather than run and hide from
your own home just to avoid the possibility of having to use
violence to protect yourself.  Also, someday your new address
might be discovered by the prospective attacker anyway.


> 
> >So was the entire city of Los Angeles while the police stood by and let 
> >chaos reign.
> 
> What's your point?  People that wanted guns those days in LA had only to
> bust into the front of the store and take one.  Obviously the waiting
> period wouldn't have been a problem there.  People that already had guns
> were a threat, people that didn't were threatened.  But in no way did  
this
> affect anyone's prospects of shooting or getting shot at.

Are you arguing that the Korean shopkeepers were a threat?
Are you suggesting that we should acquiesce to waiting 
periods and then just committ burglarly if we really need
a gun RIGHT NOW?

> 
> blah blah blah"), whereas  guns tend to be very intrusive in other  
peoples
> lives.  Just ask the Brady the bill is named after.

And how would the waiting period have helped?

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns