From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: ==> Bush Empty Promises On Crime, Statement Concering
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:21:02 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct11.191635.29914@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanfor
d.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <92284.163736U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>            GEORGE BUSH: MORE EMPTY PROMISES ON CRIME
>>    [Statement by Bob Boorstin, Deputy Communications Director]
>>
>>      One week after he helped to defeat crime legislation supported
>> by major law enforcement organizations throughout the country, George
>> Bush had the nerve to claim he was tough on crime.  More than three
>> quarters of the police officers killed in the line of duty last year
>> were murdered with handguns, but George Bush won't help pass the
>> Brady Bill.
>
>Try again.  Most of the officers "killed in the line of duty" last
>year died in motor vehicle accidents.  That's the way it's been for
>years.  You folks really should read and think about what you send
>out.  This sort of mistakes make you look stupid.
>
>Moreover, about half of the officers killed with guns are killed with
>their own guns; not even the most stupid advocates of the Brady Bill
>think that it can affect that.  Oops.  We've found one who does.  Bill
>Clinton apparently thinks that a waiting period will stop crooks from
>killing cops with the cops' gun.  (If his press is to be believed, he
>even apparently thinks that it will prevent motor vehicle accidents.)
>
>Recently, the BATF released yet another study of where criminals get
>guns.  As with previous studies, this one found that retail sales were
>not a major source.  Therefore, the Brady Bill, even if it had the
>provisions attributed to it by its advocates, can't provide the
>promised benefits.
>
>The Brady Bill, when introduced, didn't include a background check and
>DID allow local police to arbitrarily delay or deny, without recourse,
>any handgun purchase.  Bill Clinton claims that he's always supported
>the Brady Bill, yet denies being a gun banner.  Oops.
>
>Well over a year ago, the US Attorney General released a study of the
>records for the criminal justice system.  It happens that the
>accessible records are ALREADY on line, that records checks do NOT
>require a waiting period.
>
>Clinton's continued advocacy of waiting periods, his continued
>opposition to instant checks reveals his true position, as a gun
>banner, his ignorance of gun issues, or both.  Only gun ban advocates
>prefer waiting periods to background checks and only the uninformed
>think that background checks require waiting periods.  Which is it
>Clinton?  Are you a gun banner or are you stupid?  (He could be both,
>like Dewey Stokes.)
>
>> background checks, and he'll ban military-style assault weapons so
>> that our criminals are not better armed than our police.
>
>Someone should tell Clinton that police can have ANY gun they want,
>and they don't have to smuggle machine guns or have them made
>illegally.  They can't be "outgunned" by criminals.  Once again, we
>get a choice between "Is Clinton stupid?" and "Is Clinton lying?"  So
>much for being "better than Bush".
>
>Does Clinton really think that .223 (the cartridge used by the ar-15)
>or 7.62x39 (used by the AK-47) is "more powerful" than typical US
>hunting ammo like 30-06, or even 30-30?  If so, ol "hunter Bill"
>should have paid more attention during his hunter safety class.
>("Hunter Bill" claims to be a hunter, but there don't seem to be any
>records of him having a hunting license.  Maybe he doesn't because he
>didn't pay attention and failed the test.)  .223 is a 22 on steroids,
>but it is still a midget compared to typical deer hunting ammo, which
>uses larger and heavier bullets with significantly more kinetic
>energy.  .223 isn't even legal for deer hunting in some states.
>7.62x39 does use the same bullet diameter, weight, and velocity of
>30-30, but that puts it on the light end of typical hunting
>ammunition.
>
>-andy
>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
>


*            Yeah.....