HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:38:31 GMT

In article <cthong.714251096@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <cthong.713584651@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>>>it IS the few irresponsible fucks who treat it like a toy or a weapon
>>>intending to go out of their way to harm others that are to blame.
>>
>>Fine.  Then why are you so damn concerned with everyone else?
>
>because it's not only people like YOU who make up society. it's made up
>of people like me , my neighbours , my kids etc . who are forced if their
>mericans to live with the consequences and realities of life according to
>people like YOU who believe that guns are great and hell it's every person 
>for themselves and screw my neighbour if they don't have a firearm .
>it's these irresponsible people i was mentioning before that give you all 
>a bad name and make life difficult for ALL .

Note the strawman.  I'm not advocating firearms ownership, let alone
ownership for everyone and "screwing" people who don't own; I'm merely
pointing out that restrictions don't work.  Thong can't argue against
my real position, so he makes one up and argues against it.  Back
to the show.

Hold it.  Either Thong is concerned with "everyone" or he's just
interested in the "irresponsible fucks"; he's can't be concerned with
BOTH.  He knows that law can't disarm thugs, so he thinks the next
best thing is to disarm people who don't misuse guns.  He sounds like
one of those "if I can't have her, no one else can" bad guys on TV.

>but if the NRA can't or won't
>do anything about them , then it's up to the authorities . and a very valid
>option is to ban private ownership of guns . however you have the view that
>the state should ONLY do things and implement policies if they suit you
>and hang others no ? 

Not at all.  My attitude is that the govt shouldn't do things it can't
do.  Govt shouldn't do something unless the benefits realized by doing
it are greater than the costs of doing it.  Gun control is bad policy
because there benefits are realized, and the costs are high.

We've tried banning alcohol.  All we got was an expensive war and lots
of violence.  We're trying to ban drugs, with the same experience.

We can't keep guns away from people who want them any more than we can
keep drugs or booze away from them.  Thus, gun control won't affect
access by criminals and it doesn't matter how much good it would do if
it did.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:17:40 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

swatt%mickey@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:


>It is really the governing authority of the SWAT unit which needs to be
>disciplined here.  A police force which sends armed units into an
>expected deadly encounter solely on the basis of a telephone tip from
>an anonymous or in any way questionable informant is grossly neglegent.
>A large civil liability award is a good way to get their attention on
>that point.

The whole episode smacks of a grandstand play for the TV media.  The
civil lawsuits and likely settlements should reduce the city and SWAT
team's appetite for staged media events.  It doesn't do the victim
much good but it may save the next person some grief.

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:35:56 GMT

firstly- hold on -let me get a grip on myself-- heh- 
I AM NOT FROM THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA!!
SINGAPORE IS NOT , HAS NEVER BEEN , WILL EVER BE A CHINESE STATE!!
HEH.HEH..AHHHMMMM..
S"PORE IS A CULTURALLY DIVERSE ISLAND SOCIO DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
WITH A LAND AREA ROUGHLY THE SIZE OF GREATER VANCOUVER AND A LARGER
POPULATION. WE"VE HAD OUR NAME LONGER THAN YOU'VE HAD YOUR CANADIAN
IDENTITY. YOU'VE GOT A GREAT COUNTRY HERE BUT BRUSH UP ON YOUR GEOGRAPHY
MY MISINFORMED FRIEND.
My views on why people would feel safer in a country where firearms 
are prohibited (private use) are supported by these points.
- i feel safer in my country because there, i can rely on the police
 (who incidentally are not goon-squad commies as you might think..heh)
to keep the area safe. in the event of any incident , i know i can 
rely on my neighbours to look out for me as i look out for them.
the cops meanwhile are only a 20 second phone call away.
keep your gun in your pocket? ... ha... funny.
you obviously watch a lot of clint eastwood movies.
i accept points of view from all gun enthusiasts and people who feel
for whatever reason they NEED a gun . (protection? okay. ) 
you just learn to accept that as i accept your views , i don't have
to agree with them , and i'm only speaking as another curious human
being with some questions and points of his own wh feels that he isn't
the ONLY one in this country who shares this opinion.
AND KEEP MY COUNTRY OUT OF THIS UNTIL YOU GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT SIR!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 22:26:12 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <77568@ut-emx.uucp> mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
[ ... ]
>In article <1992Aug07.162932.13013@ecst.csuchico.edu> jimmay@csuchico.edu (Jim May) writes:
[ ... ]
>>This tired worn out claim is simply false.  The overwhelming majority of 
>>guns used to kill people in this country, whether by intent, accident, or 
>>whatever were purchased LEGALLY by so called law abiding citizens.  
>
>False.  Only one-sixth (i.e., NOT NEARLY an "overwhelming majority") of
>guns used in committing crimes are obtained legally.

Minor technical correction:  only about 1/6 of guns used in crime are
obtained via  -> legal channels <-  (e.g., retail gun stores), but not
always legally (e.g., if you buy one for your ex-felon brother-in-law).

Hence 1/6 overestimates the number "obtained legally".
From: veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Colorado Does Its Part For Firearms Last Night!
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:14:39 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: leviathan.ce.utk.edu

In article <1992Aug13.221036.23556@hawkmoon.mn.org> gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray) writes:

>Now if the majority of the Senate were to turn over. . .  :-)
>

     As far as the Senate goes, I can't win.  The only way one of the
Tennessee Senate seats will be up for grabs is if Clinton/Gore wins the
White House.  :-(

>Bill

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: UFO "October Surprise" and USA TAKEOVER?!
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:33:46 GMT

In article <13334.2a8a801c@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>
>It might have something to do with the fact that the population od the
>US is greater than the population of Europe.
>
		Population	Area (square km)	Density (/square km)

US		246 million	9.4 million		26
Japan		123		0.3 million		331
Euro 12		324 million	2.4 million		145

"Euro 12" only includes members of the European "community"; i.e., Austria,
Switzerland, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe are not counted (except for
Greece).  I suspect it is more a question of local density and mixing (in
other words, we look specifically at the places where it is bad) than
overall population or density stats....

Jens
From: veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:11:46 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: leviathan.ce.utk.edu

In article <1992Aug15.003228.18016@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:

>Perhaps he's been listening to G.Bush's new ad, "..this is a nation of law.."
>(or something similar...).  G.Bush is clearly not interested in _justice_
>only _law_.  Definitely the guy I want for president... :-(
>

     Well, in fact, he's probably right.  It is a criminal misnomer
for us to call our Legal Department the Justice Department, in the same
way as we call our War Department the Defense Department.  (Shades of
Orwell's Ministry of Peace, no doubt.)

     When you deal with the government, you deal with the law.  Justice
is the province of the jury, not the prosecuter or judge.  The deal with
the law.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:03:48 GMT


In <1992Aug12.184100.29806@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> Pat Weber states:

|From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
|(description of horrifying SWAT terrorism deleted, then adds:)

|I don't get the connection...if the woman had been armed would this
|confrontation end otherwise? 

Who is to say? Her first thought was to gather the kids together
to "protect" them. IF she had a weapon, perhaps the weapon(s) might
have been in a different place and she would not have placed herself
in harms way to gather the children; perhaps if she had trained to
orient her thinking in terms of security sectors, she would have
an inkling of her possible vulnerability.

|Even if she held off the cops, they'd
|get the battering ram and kill her and her kids too.

Don't know; who is to say if killing a cop or two in the opening
moments of this confrontation would result in the police pressing
the attack instead of backing off, eh?

|I've said this a
|dozen times - gun ownership does not stop police/govt abuse of its
|citizens.

Hmm, I understand that down in Florida, some police will inform the
suspects that they are the police, so that they may surrender peacefully
instead of engaging in gun battles with people whom they believe are
trying to 'rip them off.'

|What can you do? Drive to the police station & shoot it up? Sniper
|away at cops on the hiway? None of that will change from the state
|imposing its forcefull will on you or me.

Like Hell. Do you think that IRA attacks on police stations in Northen
Ireland has altered the perception of the government on how easy and
painless it is to screw with folks without getting a bit of your own
medicine in return? Hell, in LA, police stations became barricaded
after the LA riots... damn right they figured for the moment, pissed
off people were perfectly willing to attack the government.

|Thru legislation they make criminals of it's citizens andand thus make
|us eligible for the police 'treatment''.

|Please don't quote the US revolution to me - this was an external
|army occupying another country.

Extralegal retaliation by citizens is not unknown in the USA...

It's sh*t like this stuff that makes me see Red when I hear about
how legislatures bowing to police demands for "No Knock" warrents.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 11 Aug 92 02:16:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

The Seattle Times for August 8th has a front-page story entitled
"SWAT Killing: No Charges  //  State finds no negligence despite
split inquest jury".

To summarize the article: last March, the Snohomish County SWAT
team got a tip for a suspect in an armored-car robbery/murder.
They geared up and (in accordance with standard SWAT procedure)
assaulted the house with overwhelming force.

Unfortunately, there were a few problems.  (1) the suspect was
not in the house at the time, (2) his wife and two children
were, (3) the SWAT team did not announce their identity as police
officers, and (4) one of the deputies had an itchy trigger finger.

Net result?  Deputy Tony Aston shot and killed Robin Marie Pratt
in full view of her 6-year-old daughter and 5-year-old niece,
using his MP-5 submachine gun.  Pratt was totally blameless; she
heard men breaking down the door and windows, ran from her bedroom
to gather the children, and was shot to death without warning by
by Deputy Aston, who was in the hallway.

This situation sounds pretty bad, right?  Well catch this: Larry
Pratt, the man they were coming to arrest, was *innocent*!  They
dropped all charges shortly afterwards, saying they had received
a "bad tip".

Now the State Attorney General's office has decided not to prosecute
the Deputy.  To quote the newspaper: "Greg Canova, the senior
assistant state attorney general, announced yesterday that there was
not sufficient evidence that Deputy Anthony Aston intentionally,
recklessly, or negligently fired the shot that killed Robin Marie
Pratt, 28."

To my mind, this sort of incident can *only* be caused by reckless,
negligent, or intentional action.  It's damn sure that weapon didn't
fire by itself!

The inquest jury likewise did not agree.  Of the six jurors, three
considered it intentional homicide, one called it negligent homicide,
and the remaining two deemed it excusable homicide.  Unfortunately,
the jurors findings were only "advisory" and Canova has chosen to
ignore inquest findings which, in any other circumstances, would
clearly call for a criminal trial.

Deputy Aston has now been restored to active duty.

In a rational world, I would hope that this sad incident would cause
people to reconsider the concept of disarming the citizens while
leaving the police armed.  This incident is just one more piece of
evidence that the police and the courts simply cannot be trusted to
reprimand their own members for abuse of power.  An innocent person
was shot to death by police in her own home, and rather than seeking
justice and admitting fault, the attorney general and police are
closing ranks to protect their own.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.french
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Keywords: guns and fascism
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 07:09:25 GMT

marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini) writes:

>>Well, all this brouhaha started after I politely inquired about the permit
>>requirements.  As for paramilitary semiautomatic rifles, I have seen them
>>advertised in French arms magazines, the sole difference being their
>>chambering in a non-military caliber, like .243 Winchester or .300 Savage.

>Whereas in the USA, you can buy M16s by reading ads in the newspapers.

	On this point you are terribly misinformed.  Not only can you
not buy an M16, you can't even find one for sale in the ads of a newspaper.
Go ahead, look.  No class III dealer advertises in the newspapers.  His
audience needs to be other class III dealers, not John Q. Public.

>We agree that European countries have less criminality than the USA.
>As a matter of fact, thay also have harscher control on guns...

	Neither of which has anything to do with being able to purchase,
or not purchase, M16's from the fore sale ads in a newspaper.  If you
demand stats, the readers of talk.politics.guns have them in abundance.
Your own contribution is welcome, but note who you're debating against.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:19:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.184100.29806@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:

>Please don't quote the US revolution to me - this was an external
>army occupying another country.

No, we were a British colony.  King George was our king, and his troops
were the agents of our government.  This was true until AFTER the
revolution succeeded.

Better dust off those history books; there's a lot to learn there about
why some people think an armed populace is a good thing.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:56:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.151030.3859@nosc.mil> sampson@nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) writes:

}     So you disagree with the rebutter, whose "rebuttal" you edited out,
}when he says that anyone who walks around L. A. at 11:00 P. M. is a fool?

I'll disagree with him.  I've lived in L.A. for 42 of my 44 years.  I've
spent many hours walking around many parts of the city after 11:00 PM
without incident.  The one and only time I've ever had any trouble
happened in broad daylight.

L.A. is a big place.  People who've never been here often have trouble
comprehending just how big and diverse it is.  There are a few areas I'd
be cautious about walking through, day or night.  There are many more
where I'd go without hesitation, day or night.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<183135@pyramid.pyramid.com> <1992Aug20.192733.14403@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:42:32

>>>>> On 20 Aug 92 19:27:33 GMT, sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) said:
>>George Lambert

> Are you related to Tim "lean back an' enjoy it" Lambert?

More fantasies from Mr Rifleman, I see.  Since when did expressing
scepticism about the mish-mash of mangled pro-gun propaganda that you
spout equate to advocating "lean back and enjoy it"?

Tim
From: dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Summary: P.S...
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:22:42 GMT
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.


 By the way, my previous post was refering to article 41057
posted by bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler).

So sorry. 

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Don Thompson                        |   I may be opinionated, but at least
Comshare Inc. dont@execu.execu.com  |   my opinions are my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Policing Ourselves
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:48:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <PA142548.237.714174876@utkvm1.utk.edu>,
 PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes...

>>|> (Jim Zakany, me)
>>|> Why don't we (gun owners) police ourselves to insure that gun owners are 
>>|> competent to own and operate such a potentially dangerous device?

>>|> The SCUBA industry polices itself quite effectively.  One must have been 
>>|> certified as a competent diver before renting/purchasing SCUBA gear.

>>Actually, I don't believe there are any requirements for purchase of
>>SCUBA gear.
>>However, I agree the sport diving industry is a good example of
>>self-regulation.

>You are mostly correct.  Most of the shops I have been to would not sell you 
>pressure gear if you couldn't cough up a c-card.

Whoa!  This isn't about diving.  It's about responsibility.  I really don't 
want the state to politicize my Constitutional rights, but those who assert 
that guns should be left completely unregulated are, in my opinion, 
irresponsible fools.  I am absolutely against waiting periods and 
repetetive background checks (what's the point, folks?).  I am absolutely 
FOR firearm training.

Those who carp that "Licensing => Gun Bans" are really ignoring the fact 
that most people are fed up with firearm violence and will politically 
support those who can do nothing but enforce regulations on law abiding gun 
owners.  Those that rail against firearm regulation will be partially 
responsible for the ownership restrictions that may come to pass.

I see nothing wrong with a gun safety program that issues a license that 
certifies that the carrier is competent to operate a firearm!  In fact, I 
see everything right with it.
                                                  James S. Zakany
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 15:40:11 GMT


From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)

ME:
>>Please don't quote the US revolution to me - this was an external
>>army occupying another country.

>No, we were a British colony.  King George was our king, and his troops
>were the agents of our government.  This was true until AFTER the
>revolution succeeded.

King George...you're not confusing him with Bush are you? His troops,
you mean like the FBI, CIA, BATF, IRS - agents of the Govt?
So what's the difference between now & then?

>Better dust off those history books; there's a lot to learn there about
>why some people think an armed populace is a good thing.

I think arms are good, but not for overthrowing the US Govt. It'll
never happen. Who you gonna shoot at? Where? Why?
When the police want you, they'll come for you in the middle of the
night, your neighbors will ignore it, and the police would just
LOVE to shoot you if you thought of resisting. So what you gonna do?
Go downtown & shoot up the IRS building - the police will have you
and 'your revolutionaries' gunned down quicker than you can say
Posse Comitatus.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns