From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:00:38 GMT

In article <1493@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:

>Boy, do people ever jump to conclusions around here.

>pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>I mentioned shotguns precisely because they have never been proposed
>for gun restrictions, since I know very well you can get killed just
>as easily (or more easily in some cases) by a shotgun then, say, a .22
>caliber revolver.

     Far more likely, in fact.  Shotguns are amazingly deadly weapons.
However, they are also amazingly popular among the rural gun-owners
who have yet to get involved in this debate, because they have been
convinced of the validity of the "good gun/bad gun" arguments.  To
propose restrictions on shotguns would convince yet *another* group
of gun owners that things aren't what they appear.  (as recent attempts
to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles" did for many rifle owners who
previously considered their guns to be "good guns" and therefore safe.)

>I never said a no-firearms fight would be fair, but I would suggest
>that it is somewhat less likely to end with somebody being dead.  You
>could dispute that point, I suppose.

     You misunderstand the intention.  The idea is *not* maximum protection
of life for *all parties* involved.  The idea is to prevent *grave bodily
harm* from coming to the victim.  To be perfectly honest, the individual
initiating the violence must take his chances.

>>Try these ideas:
>>
>>Women almost never initiate violence.
>>Men already have all the "ARMS" they need to commit violence
>>against women.

>How does this help things?  Or are you suggesting a complete ban on
>firearms sales to men?  That would be novel, but I wouldn't support
>it.  What I *do* support is a ban on sales of any firearm to anyone
>who cannot prove their proficiency with that firearm on a range, and
>to anyone who hasn't passed an approved firearms safety course.  

     First, such course requirements are subject to terrible abuse.  (Ask
a few people in New York about the required courses for carrying a gun...)
     Besides, since the vast majority of problems with firearms are *
intentional misuse* of the weapon, I fail to see how making sure people are
proficient on the *range* is going to solve any problems.  *Accidents*
are not the problem, and they, unlike homicides, have bee decreasing for the 
better part of this century, and continue to do so.

>I
>also support a waiting period for the purchase of firearms and the
>registration of firearms, for a variety of reasons.

     Waiting periods have no effect on crime, and I defy you to produce any
real evidence to the contrary.  Many places in the U.S. have waiting periods,
so if there *is* evidence to be had, it should be easy to find.
 
     As for registration, it has been used *already* in the U.S. in some
places for consifscation.  And again, please show us some evidence that 
registration in any way impact crim.

>>Typical victim of HCI propaganda, doesn't understand the true category
>>is "family, friends, and acquaintances", where acquaintances include
>>people like rival drug dealers. 

>No, I do understand this.  But I also know that guns are much less
>likely to be used against intruders or strangers.  

     No.  Guns are much less likely according to *one* study, to *kill*
intruders or strangers.  The study made no mention of firearm uses that did 
not involve a death.  And since the vast majority of the "family member"
deaths were suicides, it is unlikely that the lack of a gun would have made 
any difference, since gun availability has not been shown to affect suicide
rates.

>And that this is
>particularly true when the owners don't know what the hell they are
>doing.  In my experience, most of them don't, and this goes double for
>their children.

     My experiance has been quite the opposite, but perhaps that is simply 
because it is not unusual for families to grow up around firearms in this 
area.
 
>>Also probably doesn't realize that violent criminals have families 
>>and friends too, but just because they kill their f&f doesn't mean 
>>JKING would any more than JKING is likely to rob a bank.

>As I'm sure you would agree, violent criminals are, well, violent, and
>likely to obtain guns no matter what you do.  And you're right: I
>think I'm extremely unlikely to kill anybody or rob a bank.  But that
>doesn't mean you couldn't do a much, much better job in preventing the
>appallingly large number of gun homicides that do *not* involve
>convicted criminals and their acquaintances or encounters between
>strangers.

     The vast *majority* of gun homicides involve violent felons, or at 
least persons with previous arrests for violent felonies.  (I've seen a 
number of different studies and reports, with the numbers ranging between 
seventy and eighty five percent.)

>There's no way I want to get any deeper into this morass at this point,
>and I've pointed follow-ups to talk.politics.guns.  But I guess I do
>want to make the following statement.

>My dad was at one time a Marine Corps captain, a Distinguished Expert
>in BOTH rifle and pistol, and an alternate to the 1952 US Olympic
>team.  He had one heck of an impressive medal collection, and he may
>well have fired more shots in his life than everybody else reading
>this post put together.  He was also an incredible safety nut.  He
>would quiz us constantly on what we were to do if we found a gun lying
>around anywhere, and when we were old enough, he showed us how to make
>a variety of guns "safe" (no, not by using the "safety").  He taught
>us how to shoot pistols and rifles, and when I was old enough, I
>joined an NRA-sponsored Junior Rifle Club, where I eventually lost
>interest in it after completing something like six or seven "bars"
>between Sharpshooter and Expert.  (Why?  Well, I wasn't a particularly
>good shot, particularly after I lost my coach.  So it goes.)

>Since that time, I've come to find out that many people who own guns
>(including friends and, alas, some family) don't have the remotest
>clue about what they are doing with them, but don't know it.  This is
>unsafe, and unacceptable to me.  Unfortunately, I have also decided
>that the NRA is much more interested in promoting its weird gun policy
>objectives than in making people safe shooters, or insuring that only
>qualified people get to own them.  

     The idea behind the Second Amendment is that, off all people, the 
government *not* be allowed to decide what criteria are involved in being 
"qualified" to own a gun.  This leads, like most other regulation, to 
increasingly stringent restrictions, finally leading to eventual outlawing 
of an armed citizenry, something the Second Amendment was written to prevent!

>But what to do?  The present
>situation is unacceptable, and while many of the alternatives are also
>unpleasant, I can't justify the extension of the second amendment from
>a "well-regulated militia" to the whole of the current group of
>gun-owners without some major changes.

     First, we've gone around and around about the definition of well-
regulated and militia.  I suggest you look up the definition of the militia 
in both your dictionary and in U.S. Legal code.  Besides, the defining of 
thr militia in the Second Amendment is a statement of purpose, not a 
restriction on the word "People."  The People's right is protected, *not* 
the militia's.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:411 alt.politics.elections:8983