From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:56:36 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul23.222601.8031@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. 
> 
> >Waiting periods for credit card purchases can help stop those with
> >bad credit.
> 
> We're talking about guns that kill people, Ngai.  Let's not be condescending.

Uh, no, we're talking about guns that DON'T kill people, or at least innocent
people.  Guns that kill people -- guns used by criminals -- are almost NEVER
bought in places that would be subject to a waiting period.

> Someone that doesn't own a gun could easily have her defensive weapon
> turned AGAINST her, no?  ...Since you seem to mention a threatened woman as
> if she were the totally helpless type.

I'm going to assume this was a typo, and that you meant to say, "Someone that
DOES own a gun could easily have her defensive weapon turned against her."
(If that's not what you meant, explain it, because I don't understand it.)

Fact is, in a study of all Florida rapes over a recent multi-year period,
both with armed and unarmed victims, there were NO instances of this ever
happening.  While everyone knows it's theoretically possible, it turns
out to be unlikely in practice.

> >>Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get an abortion makes zero
> >>sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.
> 
> >The use of the term "control freak" is amusing in this context.
> 
> Why?  A gun could be used to kill someone.

But it most likely won't.  Gary Kleck estimates that privately-owned
guns are used defensively 645,000 times annually, compared to 580,000
criminal uses.  Uses by people who aren't going to get their guns from
legally-operated places where your law has any effect.

> This is extreme.  I am NOT a gun banner; I really don't know that many, yet
> I know many in favor of waiting periods.  _I own a gun_.  I get tired of
> being accused thusly when I simply see the need for ways to get guns out of
> the hands of every murderous thug in the country who wants one.  (Hint: I
> am in no way claiming that all gun owners are murderous thugs.)

Background checks can help keep guns out of criminal hands.  But waiting 
periods won't.  Waiting periods aren't necessary for background checks
(cops do that in five minutes, every time they stop you in traffic.)

What would you think of a waiting period with NO background check?  Check
out the Brady Bill -- that's EXACTLY what it has.  Stupid, isn't it?
Pointless?  I wonder why it's written that way?

> I know people in favor of banning TYPES of guns...including that flaming
> liberal Barry Goldwater, who said of semi-automatics (paraphrased): "Anyone
> who needs more than one bullet to kill a deer shouldn't be hunting anyway."

Hey, pal, the Second Amendment isn't about hunting.  It's about your life,
your safety, and that of your family.  In extremis, it's about citizen
empowerment to control government (those damn radical Founding Fathers).

But hey, next time you see your local cop toting his semi-automatic 
sidearm, tell him he must be a piss-poor shot and a disgrace to his 
uniform.  You DO live in LA, right?
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion