From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:45:57 GMT

In article <14natnINNjgt@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:
>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).

Its perhaps true that they "walked into gun shops and minutes later
came out with the guns..."  But they didn't actually murder their
victims for months following the purchase.  And they would have passed
any background check at the time of purchase.  So much for waiting
periods.

>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.
>
I love this!  "Sorry miss, I know you've called and asked me to send
over a unit to protect you from your psychopathic ex-husband.  But
I can't spare the manpower right now and, well, if you get killed
we can't be held responsible anyway.  What's that?!?  Your ONLY GUN
has malfunctioned and you can't afford another?  Well, life's
really rough for you lately, isn't it?  Have a nice day.  Goodbye now."

>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.

And you get more dead wives.  Even the gun controllers acknowledge
that strict gun control, if it would affect dosmestic violence at
all, would reduce the number of murderous husbands being justifiably
killed at the expense of greater wife fatalities.  Like I said
earlier, in my view the real litmus test for a women's rights
advocate is opposition to gun control.

>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

Police protection.  Hahahahahahaha!  Try calling them up and asking
them.  They'll tell you that if you want personal protection you'll
have to hire a bodyguard.  They're not equipped, nor could they
afford, to provide personal protection services.  And if a victim
gets killed, the cops can't even be held responsible.  Perhaps
now you get a feel for why the NRA would like to see a nondiscretionary
national CCW permit system put in place.  Wake up from the utopian
dream.  Police protection.  Hahahahahahahahaha.

>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?).
>
You're right - killing is not a normal act.  But letting yourself
be killed is worse.

>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.
>
Sorry to burst your bubble, but not all the people who wanted guns
were out stealing them.  This is silly.  And are you trying to say
that the Koreans were a threat?!?

>And most of them smack of that American crybaby ethic, "Wah, but I want
>it NOW!"
>
Tell that to the folks at NARAL.  They're just a bunch of crybabies, huh?

>I understanfd both sides take on the waiting period for abortion, and I'm
>ambivalent about it myself.  However, the two are not really related.  One

Of course they're related!  Waiting periods seek to infringe on rights,
be they rights of privacy or rights to keep and bear arms.  If anything,
the RKBA is clearly spelled out while abortion is not.

>by the Supreme Court; don't give me that wash about "Where in the Constitution
>blah blah blah"), whereas  guns tend to be very intrusive in other peoples
>lives.  Just ask the Brady the bill is named after.

Sorry, but I saw Brady on CBS' "48 Hours" telling U.S. Congressmen that
if the Brady Bill had been law, he wouldn't be where he was (in a wheel-
chair).  The guy has zero credibility with me.  As for the "intrusiveness"
of guns, their defensive use exceeds their criminal use every year
(see Kleck's work).

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_ 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion