Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V4#009 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 17 Dec 93 Volume 4 : Issue: 009 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Moderater Notes, Error Correction Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (Moderated). Submissions should be sent to comp-privacy@uwm.edu and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp" with password "yourid@yoursite". The archives are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy". Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Subject: Moderater Notes, Error Correction Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 11:37:49 -0600 (CST) In Volume 4 Issue 7 posting number 1 was submitted by "The Flying Finn" vivo@hardy.u.washington.edu. Because I am new to this moderator game I entered the word "From" with a lower case "f" and thus caused the attribution of his posting to revert to ME, in some part of the distribution. As soon as I saw it, I fixed it but it is clear that some people responded to my posting rather than that of the Flying Finn from the University of Washington. I have taken the liberty of correcting the quoted references in the following responses. My appologies to all. With that exception and some double mailings things look good from here. I have no way of knowing how many people this forum reaches. The direct mailing list is more than 400 long, but some of those names are "exploders" that add others. Furthermore there is no good way of determining the readership of the newsgroup. A few folks have submitted postings with more material quoted from an earlier posting than they add of their own. Since this is a forum for discussion I assume that most readers follow a thread and have read the previous material. I therefore intend to continue to take the liberty of purging excessive quotes. Finally, the issue of gun control has strayed quite a bit from the concept of computer related privacy. With the items in this issue I intend to drop this thread. ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Leonard P. Levine | Moderator of Computer Privacy Digest Professor of Computer Science | and comp.society.privacy University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | Box 784, Milwaukee WI 53201 | ------------------------------------+------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Christopher J Burian Subject: Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation Date: 15 Dec 1993 19:16:51 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana vivo@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Flying Finn) wrote: ]If memory serves me ]right, the Brady Bill would have saved Jim Brady, Ron Reagan, a D.C. ]policeman, and a Secret Service agent from being shot if it had been in ]effect when Hinckley bought his guns(Hinckley had had mental problems that ]would be flagged by the background check). Memory serves you wrong. (1) The Brady Bill is a waiting period only, no background check. (2) Hinkley's mental problems weren't of the sort that would prevent purchase of a firearm under law, so a background check wouldn't have made any difference. This really doesn't belong in c.s.p, but I'd hate to see the thread end on a note of misinformation. ============== ======== ============================ ------------------------------ From: walls@saifr00.ateng.az.honeywell.com (Gerald Walls) Subject: Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 23:21:32 GMT vivo@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Flying Finn) wrote: >Look, nobody ever said the Brady Bill was foolproof. The point is that the >Brady Bill would prevent *some* homicides, not *all* homicides. A determined >stalker is going to get a gun. A less determined stalker - or a temporarily >pissed-off individual - will likely be deterred. If memory serves me >right, the Brady Bill would have saved Jim Brady, Ron Reagan, a D.C. >policeman, and a Secret Service agent from being shot if it had been in >effect when Hinckley bought his guns(Hinckley had had mental problems that >would be flagged by the background check). Incorrect. His medical problems were a matter of private record. Only if he were declared mentally incompetent and committed by a judge would the records appear in a background check. Hinckley probably would have passed the FBI background check for the purchase of a machine gun. That is one of the ironies of this bill: it has been well documented that the Brady Bill would have done nothing to save Jim Brady. It was just a cynical play on people's guilt to have a tragically crippled victim push a victim disarmament bill. "We have to do something, even if it doesn't help much." Wrong. It is better to do nothing than to do something wrong that will affect literally millions of law-abiding citizens. -- My Opinions Only | Who is John Galt? | --------- Space Available ----------- Gerald Walls | NRA Life Member | Don't blame me. I voted Libertarian. walls@saifr00.ateng.az.honeywell.com / int_walls@ecc6.ateng.az.honeywell.com ------------------------------ From: bcox@gmu.edu (Brad Cox @ GMU/PSOL) Subject: Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 19:04:05 -0500 vivo@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Flying Finn) wrote: >Look, nobody ever said the Brady Bill was foolproof. The point is that the >Brady Bill would prevent *some* homicides, not *all* homicides. A determined >stalker is going to get a gun. A less determined stalker - or a temporarily >pissed-off individual - will likely be deterred. So what are us stalkees supposed to do with the determined ones? Plead with them to go away? -- Brad Cox; bcox@gmu.edu; 703 968 8229 Voice 703 968 8798 Fax George Mason Program on Social and Organizational Learning ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 11:16:53 -0500 (EST) Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA The Flying Finn , writes: > Look, nobody ever said the Brady Bill was foolproof. The point > is that the Brady Bill would prevent *some* homicides, not > *all* homicides. The requirements for the Brady bill to even stop ONE homicide requires the following ALL be true: 1. That the perpetrator does not have a gun or any other weapon. 2. That they cannot get one due to the waiting period. 3. That they could not get ANY OTHER weapon beside a gun. 4. That if they could not get the weapon they would not commit the crime. Current case: a man in California is charged with the brutal murder of a local girl after kidnapping her. He used a knife. 1992: Skinheads murdered a jamaican in the Pacific Northwest by beating him with baseball bats. Europe: criminals are robbing people by holding out syringes they claim are filled with AIDS-contaminated blood. Best guess is that perhaps 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 homicides would be stopped by these kinds of restrictions. > A determined stalker is going to get a gun. A less determined > stalker - or a temporarily pissed-off individual - will likely > be deterred. Assuming they can't find a butcher knife, a shovel, a piece of wood, or a rock, or ... > If memory serves me right, the Brady Bill would have saved Jim > Brady, Ron Reagan, a D.C. policeman, and a Secret Service > agent from being shot if it had been in effect when Hinckley > bought his guns (Hinckley had had mental problems that would be > flagged by the background check). Assuming Hinkley couldn't have just taken a cab to 9th & U Streets in DC or certain parts of Southeast, and buy or rent a gun from any number of people. Considering that DC has severe gun control laws and very heavy murder counts makes me wonder why people think gun control stops criminals. Assuming he couldn't have stolen or borrowed a gun from anyone he knew. This also assumes that his condition was on record or would have been. Most areas don't have their records on computer systems even now, and this bill provides no money to do so. Assuming he couldn't have stolen hand grenades, or anything else that would cause personnel injury and collateral damage. Or made his own, or created one out of a package of nails, bolts and dynamite. Or a molatov cocktail thrown from a distance, or any other number of nasties. --- Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush ----- ------------------------------ From: etg002@email.mot.com (Tim Grothause) Subject: Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 16:57:24 GMT Organization: Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector vivo@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Flying Finn) wrote: >Look, nobody ever said the Brady Bill was foolproof. Everybody says it's FOOLISH. Even Brady himself admitted that "it will do little to stop crime...but it's a start toward the other laws that will follow". It's not about crime. It's about a fervent ideological agenda! A.G. Reno is investigating gun-owner licensing. High ammo taxes proposed to deprive the poor of guns for self-defense. Comrade Clinton has publicly called for police to sweep neighborhoods to search homes and pat-down people for weapons. 4th amendment null-and-void? YOU HAVE NO PRIVACY IN A POLICE STATE. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." -- Patrick Henry, speaking to the Virginia convention for the ratification of the constitution on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms. >The point is that the >Brady Bill would prevent *some* homicides, not *all* homicides. Brady Law won't stop *any* homicides; it *might* change how some homicides are committed. Can you show one testimonial like "I was gonna' kill her, but I couldn't get a gun so I just didn't do it because a knife or club just isn't *my* style." What if Brady *costs* a life by preventing a person from obtaing a timely means of self-defense? Is it still worth it? >A determined >stalker is going to get a gun. A less determined stalker - or a temporarily >pissed-off individual - will likely be deterred. A "pissed-off individual" will kill with whatever is at hand; it's better for the "crime of passion" defense in court. (Buying-then-killing shows premeditation.) If a (legally-purchased) gun is on hand...BOOM...and no, I don't advocate a total ban and confiscation of guns. That will work about as well as totally outlawing cocaine did. "I'm a felon 9 times over, so I no longer own any guns. However, Mrs. Liddy has a fine collection of firearms, some of which are on my side of the bed." --G. Gordon Liddy "Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws...It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem."-Mike Royko,Chicago Tribune. > If memory serves me >right, the Brady Bill would have saved Jim Brady, Ron Reagan, a D.C. >policeman, and a Secret Service agent from being shot if it had been in >effect when Hinckley bought his guns (Hinckley had had mental problems that >would be flagged by the background check). WRONG WRONG WRONG! The gun used on Brady, Regan, etc. was purchased in a Texas pawn shop MONTHS before its use in D.C. ***AND*** the Brady law CAN NOT FORCE A STATE TO CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK; the US Supreme Court has long ago ruled on that issue. The Brady law only slows delivery 5 days to allow states time to conduct a check IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO. This shows you've listened to Sarah's sound-bites and didn't get and read a text of the law. HCI would *LOVE* to have everyone believe that a background check is *required* by the law; it's not. "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister The much-touted Brady Bill is now law. Its failure to provide the expected reduction in crime will have the gun-grabbers yelling for more draconian laws instead of admitting that gun control laws can't reduce crime. Registration has historically been the predecessor to confiscation. I feel very strongly about it. I think -- I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means. --Bill Clinton, on the Brady Bill and other gun control laws. 8-11-93 "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." - President Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A) Returning to the topic of privacy...Crime will not be reduced by increasing government intrusions into your private affairs and information; only civil liberties will be reduced. In a police state, laws are crafted based upon `what you might do' as opposed to `what you have done'. We have many examples of killers that got their guns when they had a sparkling clean records. You can buy one of the estimated 200 million guns already in circulation on the street in mere minutes (without a background check or waiting period). A cradle-to-grave dossier on every citizen won't stop crime, buy hey, if it's presented as `a way to eliminate gun crime' the sheep citizenry will allow it. Slick Willie uses the explanation that his atrocities are actually "crime control" measures. Janet Reno has discovered that the phrase "doing it for the children" will let her get away with murder in Texas and Idaho and maybe even censor network programming. The thing that *really* raises my dander is that they believe we're all stupid enough to allow this crap as long as they invoke the proper excuse phrase! =============================================================================== Tim Grothause, ASEE, N4GIJ, EMT-Paramedic | etg002@email.mot.com Sys Admin, Motorola, Applied Research Lab | 8000 W Sunrise Blvd. Rescue Director, Motorola Fire/Rescue Team | Room 2128 "My opinions only, not Motorola's" | Plantation, FL 33322 =============================================================================== ------------------------------ From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 12:22:35 EST >From: Paul Robinson >Assuming Hinkley couldn't have just taken a cab to 9th & U Streets in DC >or certain parts of Southeast, and buy or rent a gun from any number of >people. Considering that DC has severe gun control laws and very heavy >murder counts makes me wonder why people think gun control stops criminals. The point that I was attempting to make was that no amount of "Brady Bills" will work since even if they are in place. Let's make an assumption or two: Suppose that the Congress approves (not likely) and the President signs a bill mandating the turning in of all handguns which is the only thing that this bill does, and someone goes out and obtains a rigle or a shotgun legally and then shoots someone: Rifles and shotguns used to kill people in restaurants and post offices; legal assault rifle used to kill school children; rifle used in Texas a decade or so ago and the user killed several people. Where does this stop? Eliminate all guns? They will still be around since they will be brought in from other countries. What about all of the guns out there that are held by those who have no respect for law and order, rules and regulatoins? If a person has an illegal handgun, why should they even bother to become legal? None. One proposal that I've heard is to suspend the 2nd, 4th, 5th and possibly the 8th Amendments to the Constitution for a period and conduct a sweep of the country taking all, legal or not, handguns, rifles and shotguns away from their owners. That is the biggest piece of balderdash that I've heard yet. The proposals by the National Rifle Association are almost absurd. Instantaneous background checks will do absolutely nothing if a person is determined to kill someone or has never had a reason to have a record of any kind concerning prison time, mental illness, etc. Simplistic soultions to complex problems are rampant these days and they never will deal with any complex problem reasonably. I have no answer to the question "What are we going to do about handguns in particular and guns overall?" I used to do a lot of hunting when I was growing up and more often than not, I never fired that weapon when I was in the fields or on the rivers. I've used rifles for target shooting and had fun. Should I, if I have a legal pistol and enjoy using it for target practice and/or home protection, have that taken away from me just because one person who is probably, but not proven to be, mentally unstable and was able to play the system against itself, be punished. Therefore, I still maintain that handgun control cannot and will not work. Dave Niebuhr Internet: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (preferred) niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: "Michael T. Palmer" Subject: Re: Gun Control/Registration/Confiscation Date: 16 Dec 1993 17:44:41 GMT Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology vivo@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Flying Finn) writes: >If memory serves me >right, the Brady Bill would have saved Jim Brady, Ron Reagan, a D.C. >policeman, and a Secret Service agent from being shot if it had been in >effect when Hinckley bought his guns(Hinckley had had mental problems that >would be flagged by the background check). Your memory fails you. Not only did Hinckley buy his gun 5 months prior to his assasination attempt, but many states STILL have laws preventing the release of psychological assessments. The NCIC will only keep track of *adjudications of mental incompetency* usually resulting from rulings of innocence by reason of insanity. Your original point, that waiting periods will prevent *some* homicides, must be weighed against the homicides that will occur *because* of the waiting period (i.e., people are unable to protect themselves). Because neither HCI nor the NRA has presented compelling data on either side as to the true number of "crimes of passion" versus "quick-buy use-for- defense cases," I suspect that it may be a wash... anecdotes abound on both sides. The background check, if done *instantly* as in Virginia, seems to be a reasonable course of action (as long as *NO* computerized records are kept to build a database of gun buyers). Waiting periods themselves, however, seem to be a waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere. To stay within the charter of this group, perhaps we should restrict followups to the privacy aspects of computerized records (which will without a doubt be subject to abuse - officially or not). Michael T. Palmer (palmer@chmsr.gatech.edu) Center for Human-Machine Systems Research, Dept of Industrial & Systems Eng Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0205 ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V4 #009 ****************************** .