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 02:36:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

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

> >No, they don't.  Anyone wanting a firearm for an illegal purpose is not 
> >going to purchase it through legal channels, nor sit our the waiting 
> >period.  Waiting periods are ONLY useful as a harassment tool for law-
> >abiding gun owners.
> 
> Funny, then, isn't it that this the exact same reasoning that I use to
> justify the legalization of drugs, but conservatives alwaysd think I'm
> an idiot?  Anyone wanting to buy drugs will get them right?

Funny, then, how people seem to think that anyone who is in favor of
the Second Amendment is a conservative.  Stick around in t.p.g; you may
learn something.

> 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).

You've been fed a line of shit, and you swallowed it.  Not your fault,
there's no one in the media to tell you the truth.  The fact is (and
don't take my word for this -- look it up) John Hinckley bought his
gun in October, 1980 -- SIX MONTHS AHEAD OF THE MARCH ASSASSINATION 
ATTEMPT.  He bought it LEGALLY and he PASSED a background check.  He
had NO felony record.  He had NO public record of mental disability.
The Brady Bill would have done NOTHING to save James Brady.

> 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.

So your law forces them to be prudent.  My, my, what a useful reason
to pass a law.  I suppose it's OK for a pregnant woman to wait for an
abortion, because if she didn't want to wait, she should have planned 
ahead.  I want to see you sell this line of reasoning.

> In addition, there are (already) special blanket permits for dealers and
> their ilk, ie professional firearms experts.  The same thing could go for
> a "professional" shooter. 

But somehow, it doesn't.  Too bad your example doesn't match the reality 
of the laws people are trying to pass.

> >So would the woman who started getting death threats from her abusive ex-
> >spouse.
> 
> 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.

NO ONE runs out and buys a gun in the heat of passion to kill somebody
else.  This is just another line of shit you have been fed:

                    E. PEOPLE IN NEED OF "COOLING-OFF"

     Criminologist Gary Kleck points out that for a "cooling-off" period to
prevent homicide, a number of conditions must be fulfilled: 1. The gun the
killer used was the only one he owned, or the only one he could have used in
the crime; 2. The killer acquired the gun from a source that would be
expected to obey gun control laws (a licensed dealer); 3. The gun was
purchased and used in the homicide in a time period shorter than the
"cooling-off" period. Discussing an analysis of 1982 Florida homicides, Kleck
found that 0.9 % (about 1 in 100) homicides fit all three criteria. He
estimated that nationally about 0.5% (1 in 200) would fit all three criteria.

Besides, the abusive spouse being usually being male, 6 inches taller,
and 50 lbs. heavier, he doesn't NEED a gun to kill or hurt his wife.
It's HER who needs the gun.

> 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
> 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?).

There's nothing wrong with being a bleeding heart -- only with having
a rusty brain.  Are you aware that FEDERAL COURTS have ruled that police 
departments are NOT responsible for the safety of individual citizens?  
That if they fail to protect you -- EVEN AFTER HAVING BEEN ASKED -- they 
are not responsible for what happens to you?  That they can just say (and 
often do) "Sorry -- we don't have the manpower, hire a bodyguard"?  That 
your safety, as an individual is NOT THEIR JOB?

Read the following actual court cases and weep:

RELY ON THE POLICE: AND PAY HEAVILY.....Even someone repeatedly threatened by
another has no entitlement to police protection until they have been physical-
ly harmed.
        In 1959, Linda Riss, a New Yorker, was terrorized by an ex-boyfriend,
who had a criminal record.  Over several months, he repeatedly threatened her:
"If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with
you, no one else will want you."  She repeatedly sought police protection,
explaining her request in detail.  Nothing was done to protect her.
        When he threatened her with immediate attack, she again urgently beg-
ged the New York City Police Department for help:  "Completely distraught, she
called the police, begging for help, but was refused."  The next day, she was
attacked" A "thug" hired by her persecutor threw lye (sodium hydroxide) in her
face.  She was blinded in one eye and her face was permanently scarred.
        The Court of Appeals of New York ruled that Linda Riss has no right to
protection.  The Court refused to create such a right because that would
impose a crushing economic burden on the government.  Only the legislature
could create a  right to protection:

        "The amount of protection that may be provided is limited
        by the resources of the community and by a considered leg-
        islative-executive decision as to how these resources may
        be deployed.  For the courts to proclaim a new and general
        duty of protection ...even to those who may be the partic-
        ular seekers of protection based on specific hazards, could
        and would inevitably determine how the limited police resources
        of the community should be allocated and without predictable
        limits."

        Judge Keating dissented, bitterly noting that Linda Riss was victim-
ized not only because she had relied on the police to protect her, but because 
she obeyed New York laws that forbade her to own a weapon.  Judge Keating
wrote:

        "What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand
is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any
weapon for self-defense.  Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to
rely for protection on the City of New York, which now denies all
responsibility to her."  [Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)].

CALIFORNIA: AN IMMINENT DEATH THREAT MEANS NOTHING.....Even a person whose
life is imminently in peril is not entitled to help.  On 4 September 1972
Ruth Bunnell called the San Jose (California) police department to report that
her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had telephoned her to tell her that he
was coming over to her house to kill her.
        In the previous year, the San Jose police, "had made at least 20 calls
and responses to Mrs. Bunnell's home...allegedly related to complaints of
violent acts committed by Mack Bunnell on Mrs. Bunnell and her two daughters."

Even so, Ruth Bunnell was told to call back only when Mack Bunnell arrived.
        Some 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived and stabbed Ruth Bunnell
to death.  A neighbor called the police, who then came to the murder scene.
        The California Court of Appeals held that any claim against the police
department:

        "...is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims
        Act, particularly Section 845, which states: `Neither a public
        entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish
        a police department or otherwise provide police protection or,
        if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide
        sufficient police protection."  [Hartzler v. City of San Jose,
        App., 120 Cal.Rptr 5 (1975)].

WASHINGTON, D.C.: RAPE IS NO CAUSE FOR CONCERN.....If direct peril to life
does not entitle one to police protection, clearly imminent peril of rape
merits no concern.
        Carolyn Warren, of Washington, D.C., called the police on 16 March
1975: tow intruders had smashed the back door to her house and had attacked a
female house-mate.  After calling the police, Warren and another house-mate
took refuge on a lower back roof of the building.  The police went to the
front door and knocked.  Warren, afraid to go downstairs, could not answer.
The police officers left without checking the back door.
        Warren again called the police and was told that they would respond.
Assuming they had returned, Warren called out to the house-mate, thus reveal-
ing her own location.
        The two intruders then rounded up all three women.  "For the next
fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced
to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual
demands of (the intruders - ed.)
        The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held that:

        "...the fundamental principle (is -ed.) that a government
        and its agents are under no general duty to provide public
        services, such as police protection, to any particular
        individual citizen...The duty to provide public services is
        owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relation-
        ship between the police and an individual, no special legal
        duty exists."

        In an accompanying memorandum, the Court explained that the term
"special relationship" did not mean an oral promise to respond to a call for
help.  Rather, it involved the provision of help to the police force.
[Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)].

> >So was the entire city of Los Angeles while the police stood by and let 
> >chaos reign.
> 
> 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.

How stupid.  You're saying, "If there's a waiting period, no problem --
any honest citizen can avoid it by becoming a looter."  What are you on?

> 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
> restricts a right that is based on a personal right to privacy (as interpreted
> 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.

For heaven's sake, guy, read the damn Second Amendment.  It's even a hell of 
a lot clearer that some "interpreted right to privacy" -- it's right there 
in black and white.  Rights ARE intrusive, friend -- just like somebody's
right to publish or say what you don't agree with.  If we only honored
inoffensive rights, why would we need rights at all?
-- 

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