3.2 "A waiting period saves lives, and it might even have stopped John Hinckley, Jr. from wounding Jim Brady (for whom the Brady national waiting-period law was named)."
Description
This article is from the talk.politics.guns Official Pro-Gun FAQ, by Ken Barnes (kebarnes@cc.memphis.edu) with numerous contributions by others.
3.2 "A waiting period saves lives, and it might even have stopped John Hinckley, Jr. from wounding Jim Brady (for whom the Brady national waiting-period law was named)."
See particularly LaPierre,"Guns, Crime, and Freedom,"
where he devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 5) to this.
In summary: Waiting periods, ostensibly for the purpose of background
checks, are ineffective against determined criminals, who can obtain
illegal guns by a variety of means, including "strawman purchases" by
individuals with clean records, theft, and purchase from illegal dealers
and/or smugglers. All of these channels are illegal (and therefore by
definition unavailable to the law-abiding), and avoid both waiting
periods and background checks. Background checks, in principle, can
be done in the manner of a credit card transaction, if appropriate
databases are established. In the absence of such databases, the
personnel and paperwork requirements placed upon law enforcement
officers detract from time and resources needed for combating more
serious crimes (see also Brady Act," Appendix I.) Establishing
such readily accessible databases would greatly aid law enforcement
in the apprehension of criminal suspects (particularly fugitives),
and seems a good idea on its own merits, aside from "gun control".
Waiting periods did not and would not stop John Hinckley, Jr. (who
had a clean criminal record, and whose mental health history had been
covered up by his wealthy parents, and who purchased a .22 revolver
in Texas several_months_before his attempt to assassinate President
Reagan); or convicted mass murderer Colin Ferguson (who purchased the
9mm Ruger in April 1993 he used to attack passengers on the Long
Island Railroad in December after undergoing a fifteen-day waiting
period and mandatory background check in California); or the murderer
of John Lennon (who bought his .38 revolver in Hawaii, while working
as a_security_guard_for a Waikiki apartment building, despite a violent
marriage, and being treated for a suicide attempt!); or gay serial
killer Andrew Cunanan, who stole the .40 caliber pistol he used to
murder designer Gianni Versace from his first victim, former Navy
officer Jeffrey Trail, whom Cunanan bludgeoned to death with a claw
hammer at an ex-lover's Minneapolis apartment (Trail had bought the
gun legally in San Diego, while in training to join the California
Highway Patrol). Such cases point up one of the major impediments
to effective background checks, which is the confidentiality of mental
health and drug treatment records, as well as the difficulty of
defining just what type of "mental health history" is sufficient
disqualification for denying a person their civil right to keep and
bear arms. Should people treated for clinical depression lose their
right to protect themselves from violent crime? How about people with
no criminal record, but who've sought marriage counseling? Recovering
alcoholics or those who've abused other drugs at some time in the past?
Far from stopping "crimes of passion," waiting periods can even
make matters worse, if an abused spouse is denied the best means of
self-protection, while the abuser can use whatever weapon is at hand
(a knife, blunt trauma, strangulation, battery-- or a gun) to kill
or maim. "Crimes of passion" are often the culmination of a long
pattern of abuse, and anti-stalking laws and restraining orders,
like waiting periods, only affect the law-abiding. The victims of
violence in these situations may realize only too late that they
need to defend themselves, and in such a situation, a waiting period
(which considers everyone a potential criminal)"can_kill. People who
already own and use guns responsibly need not wait for a background
check, since they wouldn't require a_new_gun (or a gun at all) if they
were inclined to commit a crime. People who already commit violent
crimes with guns aren't going to be deterred by another law, and are
already prohibited by law from possessing guns if previously convicted
of a serious crime.
Continue to:
My Books
