From: mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: ==> Bush Empty Promises On Crime, Statement Concering
Originator: mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 12:33:54 GMT
Reply-To: mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps)
Organization: IBM Kingston NY


Since this was brought into alt.politics.clinton, its fair to comment on
 it here also... 

In article <92284.163736U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>, U56503@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
[deleted]
|>             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.

What does the Brady Bill have to do with preventing the murder of police
 officers?  EVERY version i've read (HR 7 and the Senate version) only attempts
 to restrict the law abiding.  The vast majority of the violent crime, including
 (but not restricted to) murder of police officers is being committed by criminals
 with a long history of crime.. and 5/6 of these criminals obtain their guns
 from illegal sources (from Dept of Justice, via the Attorney General).  So,
 the Brady Bill is attempting to go after the other 1/6.. thats fine, except has
 anyone out there actually *read* the Brady bill?  Heres some highlights..
 - NO background check (HR7) mandated; in fact, its explicitly stated that the
    proposal "shall not be interpreted to require any action by a chief law
    enforcement officer which is not otherwise required [by current law]" ([] from
    me).  Does any rational human being actually think that a 7-day waiting period
    is going to somehow miraculously prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun?
    The Senate version had a background check inserted in it; unfortunatly, they
    also left in most of the loopholes, and added a few more.. and since the 
    Senate version differed from HR7, they would have had to be reconciled, with
    god knows what for a result.
 - The BB also granted the power of denial to a non elected offical, namely the
    local police chief, with no defined channel of appeal.  It also failed to 
    lay down any guidelines for the police chief.  In otherwords, it (a) granted
    power of denial, while (b) providing no recourse and (c) with no rules.
    If you're gonna do a background check, base it on the facts: look at the 
    applicants' police and mental health records.

What would I do to try and stop the 1/6 who do use retail channels?  Well, i'd
 craft a law that was fair, effective and as nonintrusive as possible.  It would
 be a point-of-sale background check.  But wait.. before you all tell me that its
 impossible.. impractical.. and technologically advanced.. a few facts:
  * almost every time someone uses a credit card, a pos check is performed.  Its
    not only practical, its done millions of times a day.
  * Although he may not have realized it, Charles Schumer, one of the most 
    offensive of the BB supporters in the House of Reps, also believes that it is
    practical; he pushed a instant check through the House within the last few
    weeks [its to be used by autobody shops to ensure that they are not recieving
    stolen automobiles and was prompted by the recent carjacking stuff]; he argued
    that an instant background check was impossible.. i guess in the last year
    we've made some incredible technologial gains, right Chuck?
  * according the the DoJ, the records needed to perform this background check 
    are either currently online or will be shortly.. as well they should; the
    police already depend on this information to perform a check on someone, 
    for example when they are pulled over.  In fact, the Senate version of the
    Brady Bill required these records to be available.

Strangely enough, there was such a bill proposed in 1991.  It was called the
 Staggers Act, and it had the support of the NRA, among others.  Too bad that
 Mssrs Shumer, Owen, et all and the Brady Bill authors opposed it.  Why on 
 earh would they do that?  Well, perhaps they really aren't all that interested
 in protecting us - they just want to play political games at all of our expense.

The Brady Bill *NEVER* attempted to solve the problem of criminals and the 
mentally incompetent obtaining arms.  To solve this, the real problem, we've
got to stop releasing the [violent] criminals as fast as they are caught.  This
doesn't mean that we suspend the BoR, it means that, if a criminal is caught, they
ought to be charged and tried.  If they are convicted, they ought to be sentenced
to long jail terms.. society cannot afford to allow these people on the streets.
Note that this is no different from how the criminal justice system is supposed to
work.. but today the vast majority of those arrested are never brought to trial.
As long as we allow this to happen, we will continue to have a crime problem.

As for police officers, search back through clari.news.law.crime.violent and find
the article discussing the deaths of 2 police officers (in MD i think).. and note
that they were both killed WITH THEIR OWN GUNS (seperate incidents, too).  I think
that this would indicate that their department has not trained their officers
well, specifically in the area of gun retention.  This is a well known problem,
with a practial solution - training.

Face it, the BB is a scam.. a vicious bad joke purporting to solve violent crime
without even attempting to address the issues.. 

|> 
|>       George Bush says he supports "the brave men and women who wear
|>  the blue," but he has denied local law enforcement the resources
|>  needed to fight crime.  In fact, just last week, Dewey Stokes, the
|>  National Fraternal Order of Police's (FOP) President, said, "You've
|>  taken away our bread and butter, you took away the crime bill because
|>  you wouldn't stand up to the NRA.  You're not fooling me."

The FOP is just one of the vast number of police organizations.  They do not
 speak for all police officers.  I have sat in meetings with members of the FOP
 who would disagree most vehemently with Mr. Stokes.  Mr Stokes also appears to
 have some political asperations; could he be exploiting this?  nah...
The "crime bill" contained some pretty crummy things too - do you really want
 to weaken the exclusionary rules further?  The House and Senate also played
 politics by tacking unrelated things like the Brady Bill on it.

|> 
|>       George Bush has done more to fight the crime bill in Congress
|>  than he has to fight crime in the streets.  He's proposed cutting
|>  funds for local law enforcement, and he's refused to sign crime
|>  legislation that would more than triple funds for community policing
|>  and increase resources for victims' programs.
|> 
|>       Bill Clinton has a plan to dramatically expand community
|>  policing and put 100,000 more police on our streets.  He'll sign the
|>  Brady Bill to give local law enforcement a chance to run criminal
|>  background checks, and he'll ban military-style assault weapons so
|>  that our criminals are not better armed than our police.  And despite
|>  the President's charges, Bill Clinton has and will continue to carry
|>  out the death penalty for the murder of a law enforcement official.

1. Bills' for the Brady Bill; see above - too bad he wants to stick his head in
   the sand, too.  Do any of you realize that Mr. Clinton (in Iowa) also claimed
   that he doesn't see the need for a waiting period, that a background check is
   the answer.. and that a few hours prior (in St. Louis) said that he did see 
   the need for a waiting period.. doesn't it frighten you that he seems to be
   changing his story depending on the audience?  Did anyone else notice that
   after the LA riots, he was claiming that the BB would have saved lives?  Does
   he know that California has a 15-day waiting period and a background check?
   Or that the majority of the LA riot's gun related deaths appeared to be from
   gang action?  Read the victim list - i did..

2. First, a definition:  assult rifle: a military firearm capable of firing 
                                    multiple shots with one pull of the
                                    trigger, generally chambered for a medium
                                    power round (i.e. 5.56 nato or 7.62 russian)

 It is virtually impossible for any private citizen to legally own a assult rifle,
  media bullshit nonwithstanding.  To legally do so, you must (a) live in a state
  that allows it (b) obtain a class III liscense, which gives the goverment the
  right to search your house or business at any time with no search warrent.  It
  also requires that local law inforcement sign off.  Since the enactment of the
  National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA34) there have been 2 or 3 uses of a legally
  owned full auto firearm in the commission of a crime - and one of them was a
  police officer gone bad.  
 What the media has done is to redefine the meaning of the word "assault rifle"
  to mean any semiauto firearm that happens to look like a assault rifle. 
  It appears that the looks must equate to danger or something.  
  Why does this matter?  Well, for one thing, these semiauto rifles that happen
  to look funny are virtually indistinguishable from those semiauto rifles that
  don't look funny.  In fact, this type of rifle has been around since at least
  the early 1900's.  This is why states like California have to resort to banning
  firearms by model, since they can't figure out how to describe the difference
  between the evil semiautos and the ok semiautos.  But the most compelling fact
  is that, according to the FBI, the use of ANY rifle in the commission of a crime
  runs about 1% or less of the total.  Thats right, 1%.. wanna know how the media
  came up with the other numbes?  They looked at the number of trace-backs 
  performed by the BATF.. too bad that all firearms used in crimes aren't traced 
  back.. besides the fact that a traceback does not even have to happen because 
  of a crime - it appears that California rigged their numbers by calling 
  tracebacks on thousands of firearms that were not being used by criminals.. 
 
|> 
|>       Last week, George Bush had an opportunity to pass a crime bill
|>  and do something for the American people.  But he didn't.  Even the
|>  FOP's President, Dewey Stokes, stood up to George Bush and said,
|>  "Support us. Give us at least the Brady Bill."  But George Bush
|>  didn't.
|> 
|>       Today, all we got was just another empty promise from the
|>  photo-op President.

And how is that any different from another empty promise from the photo-op
 candidate?

-- 
Michael Phelps, mjp@vnet.ibm.com .. mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 These opinions are mine..       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk