From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: HCI printed it, so...
Keywords: it must be true?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:50:52 GMT

In article <6254@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <1992Sep8.150644.15740@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (ICOM IC-R70) writes:
>> Let's see now, the headline on the USA Today article from May 4, 1992:
>> 
>> 		"Survival of the Armed"
>> 		
>> [In reference to the LA riots.]
>
>Speaking of which, a recent HCI letter says:
>
>"I will be traveling around the country trying to get the media -- and the
>public -- to focus on a few simple facts.  Facts like:
>
>o  95% of the American people want the Brady Bill enacted.

     To the best of my knowledge, 95% of "the American people" have never
managed to agree on anything concrete.  *Maybe* they can make a case for
"95% of the American people support reasonable gun control."

     I do.  :-)

>o  Every major national police organization has endorsed the Brady Bill.
>   [Really?  Including the American Federation of Police and the National 
>   Association of Chiefs of Police?]  So have dozens of national civic, 
>   religious, labor, and medical associations.

     Major police organizations have supported weakening
the exculsionary rule, no-knock warrentless searches, and
other amusing tid-bits.  I'm afraid I'm not sure I and the
police are looking for the same things, sometimes.

>o  Waiting periods, like the Brady Bill mandates work.  

     Tough to prove.  But we'll keep an open mind.

>In California
>   last year, nearly 6,000 would-be gun buyers were turned down after a
>   background check.  

     I wonder who this is according to.  I also wonder what the percentage
was between buyers and those turned down.

>   And most of them were convicted criminals!

     *Most* of them?  What were the others?  Just poor luckless souls
harrasessed by the system?  

>o  And, according to a recent poll, voters are more likely to vote for
>   a candidate who supports the Brady Bill than one who doesn't.
>   [Given the one-sided press that it's gotten, this is probably true.]

     Hell, I could write a poll that would show that the majority of
Christians in the United States wanted to elect Satan President.  What
matters here is *where* they took the poll and what the questions were.

>"If the Brady Bill had been law, giving law enforcement time to do a 
>background check, John Hinckley might have been stopped from buying that
>cheap handgun he used to shoot my husband and President Reagan."  

     I've seen this refuted several times.  I know Hinckley did not
have a felony record, and had a valid state driver's license.
(Besides which, the Brady Bill doesn't require a background check,
only a waiting period.)

>"If the Brady Bill had been law, a crack addict in Atlanta wouldn't
>have been able to walk out of a mental institution and into a gun shop
>where he bought the gun he used just hours later to shoot up a shopping
>mall -- killing five innocent people.  [Hold on, back up to that part
>about how he got out of the institution.  This is beginning to sound
>like the old joke about the hobo living under the bridge telling the two 
>cops, "I have here a piece of paper that certifies that *I* am sane.  Do 
>either of YOU two gentlemen have one?"]

     I don't, off the top of my head, recognize this one.  However,
they may be quite correct.  It doesn't matter, though, unless we
can show that he wouldn't have just gone and purchased the gun illegally.

[More about what the Brady Bill would prevent.]

     No concrete numbers on decreases in murders, which should be
more than evident in those areas with waiting period.  Anecdotes,
while tugging at the heartstrings, make poor law.

>"With the Brady Bill, criminals, drug addicts, and mentally ill people
>simply would not be able to walk into a gun store and walk out armed --
>and quick tempers would have time to cool off.

     Assuming the local police *chose* to check their background.

>"And with a NATIONAL law like the Brady Bill, crossing a state line from
>a waiting-period state to one with weak gun laws will no longer be a
>sure-fire way for a person with a criminal record to buy a gun."  

     God forbid various states be allowed to choose their own laws.

>[No,
>he'll have to resort to the other sure-fire way, which is an even shorter
>trip to some street-corner in the inner city where absolutely no questions
>are asked, and where 80%+ of them ALREADY get their guns.]

     Cheaper, too.  

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|            veal@cs.utk.edu          Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties