Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <owner-comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
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" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
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 <cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu>
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.
=<Christopher Burian>======<Orwell was an optimist.>======<cburian@uiuc.edu>=
====<PGP public key on the server, or finger cburian@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu>====
=============<Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.>===============
------------------------------
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 <PAUL@TDR.COM>
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 <vivo@hardy.u.washington.edu>, 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 <randy@psg.com>
-----
------------------------------
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 <PAUL@TDR.COM>
>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" <palmer@chmsr.isye.gatech.edu>
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
******************************
.