From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Subject: Re: Travelling armed
Keywords: Guns laws crime murder waiting periods 
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:34:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.193212.1999@eskimo.celestial.com> alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:
[...]
>     I agree strongly on this.  Probably the number one reason for a high
>murder rate in this country is the war on drugs.  (the war on individual
>rights)  If drugs were legalized we would:
>Eliminate pushers - no economic incentive, no pushers
>Reduce drug usage in schools - no it wouldn't be eliminated, but would
>be reduced

In fact, kids would tend to get bored with it.  Many are already.
Those that aren't -- while you might need to do some kind of
intervention to deal with a kid who is doing a lot of drugs and generally
fucking him/herself up, the criminal part contributes nothing, and indeed,
the drug works like the spotted owl here -- it's an *indicator* that all
is not well with the kid (just as the owl is an indicator of the health of
the forest, and suitability for sustainable logging), and you'd best spend
some time finding out *why*.

>Reduce gang violence - the major cohesiveness of gangs is the profit
>from drugs
>Eliminate drive by shootings - Related to above
>Eliminate drug dealers as role models - Again take away profit
>Save Millions of dollars in tax payers money
>Gain millions (billions) of dollars in tax revenue - which could be spent on Law
>enforcement, drug education, drug rehabilitation programs

OK, WODDers, what's wrong with these arguments?  Why must our freedoms,
lives and livelihoods continue to be sacrificed for your insane desire
to keep people from being high or from partaking of pleasure in other ways?

You get rid of the elements of crime and high-stakes risk associated with
drugs and a *lot* of problems go away.  Sure, a few people will ingest
drugs and then go and operate heavy machinery, just like they do right now.
There might be even a temporary overshoot in the accident rate.  That would
*still* be less than the ongoing murder rate with drugs illegal.  You also
free up the resources tied up in *nonproductive* enterprises like jails and
associated jobs (which otherwise create a vested interest in drugs remaining
illegal, but contribute nothing else to economic productivity) to be used
hopefully to aid economic recovery.  Moreover, some of those drugs (hemp,
in particular) are generally useful plants, with a wide variety of desirable
properties and by-products.

>>4)  And lastly on what is wrong with a waiting period.  LA.  California 
>>has a 15 day waiting period.  Alot of people didn't realize what this 
>>meant till the riots started and they wanted to get a firearm to defend 
>>themselves or their buisnesses.  Of course we all know what happened.  
>>The businesses that were defended remained intact and those that were 
>>not burned.  In some blocks ONLY the defended buildings were standing.   

Well, people *could* just tough it out and endure the waiting period.
Aren't all of you gun nuts a little macho anyway :) ?
I think the purpose of the waiting period is to find out if you are/were
a saucer abductee, hear voices, or if you have had a set of mysterious gun
accidents.  The thing is, if you do it *now*, and do the wait, then, after
it's over, and you pass muster, you will have a weapon available for whatever
you decide to do with it.  I personally think that a minimal demonstration
of competence is called for;  I think that a person could iterate on
competence testing until they got tired of it or passed.  Perhaps training
in schools?  Part of PE?

Perhaps the right to bear a handgun might be a matter to be put before the
electorate: shall Jo Doaks be permitted to carry concealed handweapons? --
where Jo Doaks would "run" (i. e. conduct a campaign, as it were, to convince
the populace that they should carry a weapon) for the "privelege".
Or it might be an adult rite of passage, a la Heinlein's stories.

Hmmm...You weren't just thinking you could pull up to GunsToGo in your
Bigfoot and snarf a pair of AK47's and a case of banana clips, did you?

>   I think you're a little off base with this one.  The riots occured
>the same day as the court decision aquiting the officers.  To have
>obtained guns during the LA riot to defend oneself, a person would have
>to have run to a gun shop while the rioting was occuring.  If businesses
>were selling guns over the counter during the riot, then rioters (who
>outnumbered everyone else on the streets) would have been in there
>purchaseing guns just as well.  Shop owners would have had no way to
>tell the difference.

Well, here is where prudence and planning ahead might have been useful.

>>     I think that these are all good reasons why a waiting period is not 
>>such a good idea.
>
>    Well, the only argument you gave that I was really swayed by was the
>example of the woman being stalked and feeling immediately threatened. 
>I could see in the instance where someones life is in short term danger
>(death threats, stalkers, etc) then a person could have need of a gun
>more quickly.

She'd *still* have to be accountable for her use of the weapon.  None of
this "oops, got the wrong guy" shit.  There's enough of that with the cops
now, without having to put up with it from jumpy civilians, too.

>               But in the majority of cases, I see no real restrictions
>in having a "cooling off period" for gun purchases while more complete
>background checks are made and possibly even having the purchaser show
>some level of competency.  (Though you are right that such laws could
>easily be used by those in power to deny guns to the general populace or
>place them in the hands of only certain groups.)

Well, it could be handled just like driving is now.  It should be hard
for people with a long history of accidents to get a driver's license
and/or insurance for same; just so for handguns.  Just as you need a special
permit for a "wide load" on the road, so it might be for a bazooka or for
an all-plastic submachine gun :) ...  And if you have a string of 45
mysterious deaths from gunshot wounds accumulated over the years, you
should rightly expect to have difficulties getting liability/wrongful death
insurance.  No reason why the necessary database has to be run by the state,
though.

>>  Did you know that currently the fastest growing market for 
>>handguns ( legal ones that is ) is single women?  Not suprising since 
>>guns have been called the "great equalizer".
>
>   Sure, as the old saying goes: God created man, but Smith and Wesson
>made all men equal.  :)

Inasmuch as the previous point concerned "equalization" for women, it
would be courteous of god to say that S&W made all men AND women equal :) .
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: seattle.general