From: gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: Semi-Public System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:47:12 GMT

(Second attempt to post this--got a "follow failed" message first time.)

ness@tc.fluke.COM (Jerry Ness) writes:

>I just picked up on this waiting period thread so...

>I have never ever needed to buy a gun of any kind RIGHT NOW!!

Me neither.  However, I do not think that two data points are sufficient,
do you?

And how many data points to the contrary do you think need to be found to
justify the claim that waiting periods ARE a menace to the innocent?

For example, for several days, the heroic LAPD just let the innocent in South
Central LA do without their benevolent care while rioters murdered, plundered,
and burned the city.  Billions of dollars of damage, more than 50 lives lost,
and, in case you are not a homeowner/business owner/commercial property owner,
most insurance specifically EXCLUDES damages suffered as a result of civil
insurrection (code for riot up to civil war).

The people of Kalifornia are "protected" by a 15-day waiting period.  How
many of the dea might still be alive if they could have purchased an effective
self-defense weapon?  How many stores and homes might still be standing today
if their owners could have speedily gotten the means to defend them?

>A lengthy waiting period to do a background check or just for 
>a 'cooling off' period would certainly not infringe on my rights
>or the rights of anyone I know. 

Here in the People's Republic of Minnesotax (TM) we recently had a gun store
robbery in which two friends of mine were murdered.  The perps were MN
residents and had bought as many as 59 guns at retail stores in the
Mankato area for resale to gang members.  They had gone through the MN
waiting period and background check--you can't buy at retail without a
purchase permit here.

Waiting periods do not affect domestic violence homicides; what they may do
is enable the abusive husband the final opportunity to beat the defenseless
wife to death instead of her getting a gun and shooting him to death, but
in either case, you have a corpse.  However, in the case we have now, we
also have to incarcerate the husband.  Buying the wife a medal would be
_much_ cheaper.


I have a friend who escaped (literally) an abusive husband.  Before she
got out she could not get a purchase permit, much less a gun, without
his knowledge.  When she did get out, he hunted for her and caught her
twice.  Fortunately she escaped harm, but both times her escape was a fluke.

Her situation resolved itself without recourse to firearms, and hopefully
all could.  But they don't, and we all know of cases where the woman,
defenseless, was caught by the monster and killed.

>Plan ahead.

You can't always.  the Boogeyman could move in next door to you tomorrow.
Maybe you never thought you'd need a particular kind of firearm but the
threat picture changed radically.


Seems like if you cannot find a solid reason to infringe on someone else's
rights, the notion that it would not inconvenience you is not enough
reason to proceed.


>I think we need to get back on track and punish criminals not guns.
>If someone commits a crime, punish that person. If that person 
>used a  gun to commit the crime add 10 un-paroleable years to
>the sentence. 

That would work far better than anything we usually hear proposed.

Bill
-- 
gray@hawkmoon.mn.org
This site gets a fair news feed, but e-mail is more reliable. . . :-(
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
-- 
gray@hawkmoon.mn.org
This site gets a fair news feed, but e-mail is more reliable. . . :-(
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns