From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:28:37 GMT

echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:

>>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.

No, it's a very realistic one.  I don't have "spares" for most of my
competition guns, and since the cost of a new one is about 
$1500 on up I'm not going to buy a spare in case one of mine breaks
just before a match.  However, if one _does_ break I will want to
get hold of a new one ASAP.  BTW, maybe you don't realise just how
specialised competition guns are  -  I own a number of guns because
I shoot a number of different matches, but there's no overlap.  I can't
take the gun designed for UIT Standard Pistol, for example, and use it for
Centrefire or Rapid Fire.

I don't necessarily argue that the requirements of competitive shooters
are a sufficient reason not to have a waiting period (that's specifically
a US problem), but as a competition shooter I can certainly affirm that
it would be a (potentially serious) inconvenience.

>In addition, there are (already) special blanket permits for dealers and
>their ilk, ie professional firearms experts.  The same thing could go for
>a "professional" shooter.  If the person is an amateur, then s/he is out
>of luck, and really should have prepared better, knowing in advance of the
>seven day waiting period.

How very gracious of you :-(  There are very few "professional" 
competition shooters, and a lot of amateurs who take their sport
seriously but do not have unlimited resources to devote to it.

>>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.

Excuse me?  The problem is that the _woman_ could not get a gun to
defend herself against a person who poses an _immediate_ threat to 
her life.

>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.

The police do not have the resources to protect every threatened person
24 hours a day.  Don't be ridiculous.

>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?).

Would they?  If you are threatened, will you dislocate your whole life
and career because of a _potential_ danger?  Indeed, can you afford
to do so?  Isn't it preferable to provide yourself with a form of
insurance, so that you can defend yourself _if_ the threat becomes actual?

>>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.

That only applied to people who were prepared to break the law.  Certainly,
many people might have come to believe that such a theft would be justified
if they felt the threat was serious enough, but by that stage the guns
would have been long gone.

>Obviously the waiting
>period wouldn't have been a problem there.  People that already had guns
>were a threat,

Why?  I have guns  -  am I a threat?  The law-abiding, responsible person
who has a gun is not a threat to anyone.

>.... people that didn't were threatened.  But in no way did this
>affect anyone's prospects of shooting or getting shot at.

What it affected was their prospects of defending themselves against
or simply deterring people who were shooting at them.

>>There are plenty of reasons why one might need to purchase a gun today that 
>>have nothing to do with crime.

>And most of them smack of that American crybaby ethic, "Wah, but I want
>it NOW!"

As an Australian  -  no, it's "I _need_ it now."

Geoff Miller (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)  |   Don't steal.  The government
Computer Centre                     |   hates competition.
Australian Defence Force Academy    |   (via Jeff Cooper)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns