From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:48:18 GMT

In article <9301061603.16@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.142333.19957@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>In article <9301051932.51@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>Would it make you feel good inside to know that ex-cons who were in for
>>>murder or armed robbery could legally buy guns?
>>
>>No, but passing laws just to make "you feel better" doesn't make sense.
>>
>>What does making that illegal have to do with keeping guns out of the
>>hands of criminals ?  The illegal market for any good can supply almost
>>anything if you have the money.  And criminals will spend the money to
>>obtain the tools of their "trade."
>
>So it's better to give up and have no restrictions on firearms?

On the issue of purchase, transfer, possession and carrying, I would say
yes, get rid of the restrictions; it's arguable that the only appropriate
carry method is concealed, but we'll save that argument for later.

As far as restrictions on the /use/ of firearms go, there are appropriate
restrictions, e.g., assault with a deadly weapon is still a crime even if
committed with a firearm, etc.

Now, here's a real life example of a situation that may be useful to your
argument.  Four outdoorsmen in Ohio were murdered in the past several months.
The FBI thinks they have the right guy, and in fact he is being held in
prison without bail, but on charges of buying a firearm while under disability.
He has not been charged with the murders yet.  The FBI has asked for help in
solving the murders and have asked gun dealers to search their records for
any guns this guy may have sold them -- he was a gun collector.  In fact,
one dealer came forward with a rifle and there's a strong likelihood that
this rifle is the murder weapon.  So, if a law to make it illegal to buy a
gun while under disability did not exist this guy /may/ still be free.  On
the other hand, if that law didn't exist there would have been a different
approach to the investigation, and he may have been caught anyway.

There are pro's and con's to either approach.

Before 1934 any firearms could be bought via mail order.  After 1934 only
long guns could be bought via mail order.  After 1968 no guns could be
bought via mail order [ ignoring people with collector licenses ]
Have these restrictions prevented kooks or people with criminal intent
from getting firearms ?  I don't believe so, and all the evidence I've
seen so far indicates those restrictions do not affect criminals.  If you
have /evidence/ to the contrary we would like to hear it; e.g., the rate
of gun use among criminals, has it gone down or up or stayed about the same ?

Suppose there was a background chek and waiting period for gun purchases,
and suppose it was /perfect/ and caught all people who are disqualified
from buy a gun.  Is that going to prevent such people from obtaining a
firearm on the black market ?  I don't think so.  Even if it takes a few
days before the black market can produce what the criminal wants, that's
okay with them, because the criminal will wait until they get a firearm
on the black market before commiting their rapes and robberies.  You, on
the other hand, don't have the luxury of waiting in comfort when there
have been a string of rapes and robberies in your neighborhood.  You might
be dead by tomorrow without that gun.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape