HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: Call off the dogs. was Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violenc
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:53:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.043505.13207@convex.com> tighe@convex.com writes:
>The NRA never lobbyed for it as far as I know. In fact, they did just the
>opposite; they bargained it away in 1986 in order to get the Firearms
>Owners Protection Act passed.

Actually, I think the machine guns were lost on a last-minute addendum.
(The argument then becomes "Why doesn't the NRA just add a nondiscretionary
CCW addendum onto some legislation"?)

>As far as I know, the select-fire version of the AK-47, the AKM, or the
>AK-74, has never been legally imported into the United States. A few have
>been smuggled in, a few came in for evaluation by the US goverment. But as
>far as I know none have been available legally to civilians.

Shotgun News carries ads from machine gun dealers.  I know for a fact
that full-auto AK-47s are available.  An old SGN I have lists them
at about $2200.  The SGN is from last fall, so those are Fall 1991
prices.

Drew 
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Stop
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:33:41 GMT
Organization: The Cat Factory

In article <1992Jul22.133749.202076@uctvax.uct.ac.za> glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
[...]

}But lets assume ... he is lucky you went
}for the pelvis,you could find the state-prosecutor asking why you shot him
}where you did.  Your reply,obviously that, that you shot him there just to stop
}him.*BUT* you could soon face the accusation that because you had all that time
}to decide where you were going to shoot him, you had time to attempt to flee,
}or that you where obviously NOT in IMMEDIATE life-threatening danger.
}
}My conclusion, you should definitely shoot to kill.

My conclusion:  You should reply "I aimed for center of mass and missed."
That's probably what happened, anyway. (Technically speaking, "jerking"
the trigger causes your shots to go well below aim point.  Jerking is very
likely in a high-stress, fast moving situation).

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 {rutgers|pyramid|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
From: robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Vancouver vs. Seattle
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:33:58 GMT
Organization: Boeing

I know this has been a talked about issue before.  Unfortunately I did not
copy the comparision to my personal directory.  Could someone email me
the Seattle vs Vancouver gun ownership comparison and why you can't draw
conclusions from Vancouvers gun laws being more effective that Seattles.

thanx in advance.  


-- 

Robert Sipe                       Tell your state reps "NO" to the proposed
robs@bcstec.boeing.com            $.25 gax tax increase proposal.
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: H.R. 2922
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:49:32 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Jul25.223403.27105@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:
| My copy of H.R. 2922 finally arrived.  This bill would impose a tax
| of $0.75 per pound on primary lead, and $0.37 per pound on secondary
| lead.  The tax would be imposed for 10 years.  The money collected
| would go into a "trust fund" to pay for removal of lead based paint
| from assorted public places, inspections of said places, etc.
| 
| The tax on 1000 rounds of 200 grain bullets would be nearly $21.50
| for primary lead and nearly $10.75 on secondary lead.  Stock up now.

  I hate to say it, but who cares about bullets? The average serious
trap shooter is using 200-400 pounds a year, and paying about $0.50/lb.
This would more than double the price. Even the largest rifle bullets
are about 14/lb, and typical hunting loads are more like 40. A few
dollars increase on bullets is maybe 10-40% (bad enough), but a 250%
increase on lead would put trap and skeet on the shelf.
-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
	It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise rational people, able to
	understand calculus, compound interest, and the income tax form, can
	continue to believe that poker is a game of chance.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Guns Permits and NRA Perceptions (Re: Media bias)
Keywords: bias
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:46:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.034729.5729@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

|> We have experience with permit systems.  Some, like those for voting
|> and guns, are abused by the officials given discretion.  If said
|> experience was different, then there wouldn't be vehement objections.

Yes, we do have experience with permit systems.  One permit system deals
with the legal purchase and ownership of machine guns, aka automatic 
weapons.  There are thousands of people who legally own machine guns in
the U.S.  They have to apply for and receive a permit.  To my knowledge
there has been one single case of one of these guns being used to commit
a crime, and that was by a police officer who murdered his wife (presumably
he would have used his service revolver if he hadn't had an automatic
weapon).

How many crimes do you suppose have been committed with illegal automatic
weapons?  I would say that the permit system has worked pretty well in the
case of automatic weapon ownership.  

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: "Direct" methods of crime control
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:37:02 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul29080532@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:


>       Question: which will open the average house door faster, 
>       a lock pick or a pipe wrench?

That depends on how quiet you want to be and how big the pipewrench is!  :)
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:10:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.224818.18580@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes (  
Steve Novak) writes:
> Phil removed "and criminals", much more my concern.  I of course didn't  
state
> percentages.  One is too many.

	In a sense I agree.  However, is "one" justification
for expending legislative, financial, and judicial resources?

Robert K.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:35:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul23.231129.4935@athena.mit.edu>, sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
> Handguns may also be possessed with just the FID card; you just can't
> carry them with the FID.

This isn't what the gun dealer tells me.  He won't sell one if you don't
have the carry permit.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Pistol Permits in Massachusetts
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:14:42 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <01GMXN6N24S0A4LLIA@HUSC3.HARVARD.EDU> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

Hi, this is your old friend sybok@athena.mit.edu! :-)

>I would like to get some answers to the following questions:
>
>(i)	Are MA pistol permits supposed to be issued on a discretionary or
>non-discretionary basis?  (I recall a 1985 state law that supposedly
>stipulated the latter.)  What are the relevant sections of the MA code?

Unfortunately, MA LTC's (pistol permits) are discretionary.  The 1986
law I believe changed the law so that you must be allowed to apply,
but it didn't say that your application must be accepted.

The relevant sections are, for possesion and licensing, Chapter 140
of Mass. General Law, sections 120-133, roughly,  and for
carrying of firearms, Chapter 269, I forget the section.

>(ii)	Is there a set limit on the amount of time the issuing authority
>can deliberate on an application?  If so, is there a way to enforce it?

There is a limit of 45 days on the time the chief has to approve
or deny the license--this can be appealed in district court.  However,
what they usually do is issue you the license, but send off
for "lamination" to the Commissioner of Public Safety at 1010 
Commonwealth, which takes 9 WEEKS!  There is no legal time
limit they must abide by AFTER they approve the license.
>
>(iii)	Short of hiring a lawyer, what recourse is available in case of
>denial?  When hiring a lawyer, what are the expected costs and probability
>of success?

Outside of Boston, you'd probably stand a good chance of getting
a "target & hunting" license with a good lawyer, but you probably
won't get a "personal protection" permit unless you can show that
you've been assaulted or are being "stalked" by someone.  A few
cities have cool chiefs who issue only "all lawful purposes" LTC's.
Framingham is one of these cities.
>
>(iv)	How does the state regulate the possession and carry of edged and
>impact weapons?

Chapter 269 prohibits the carrying of dirk knives, switch blade knives,
double-edged knives, and folding knives with a blade greater than 3-4".
Possession is legal.  Carrying numchuks or other kung-fu weapons is
prohibited in the same fashion as knives.  There is one loophole,
though.  Carrying a billy club (night stick) is illegal only
if you're arrested on some other charge.  So you can carry
a billy club, but an officer who sees you will be pissed off and
probably give you a hard time.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:17928 alt.politics.clinton:696
From: jca@crash.cts.com (John C. Archambeau)
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:33:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.234512.4775@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>
>Here in the Australian State of Victoria we have random breath testing for
>car drivers. The police set up a road block and breath test drivers for a
>blood alcohol level less than .05. When this was introduced there were some
>protests from a few civil liberatarians but most objections came from hotelliers
>and other sellers of alcohol. The result now, some years later, is a change
>in attitude towards drink diving and a much reduced road toll. A great community
>and personal benefit in road safety at the cost of a few minutes hassle perhaps
>a couple of times a year.
>Most t.p.g. posters would like to see the criminal element in society disarmed,
>so how would "random gun checks" be received in US states? I know some would
>say this infringes some right but if you are a law-abiding citizen with a duly
>registered firearm then surely this hassle would be a small price to pay to
>disarm criminals. This would also make GUN CONTROL for law abiding citizens
>unnecessary.

And just how are you going to implement these random gun checks?  Have a
local BATF agent beat on my door and request to inspect my collection of
firearms?  No criminal who is hiding a collection of firearms illegally
obtained is going to show off his/her illegal firearms to any member of
law enforcement or BATF unless he/she plans on using them.  Obviously,
no one is going to take an illegal firearm to a shooting range to
practice with it.

How would you implement this random gun control?  I can't see how it
would possibly work.
--

     // JCA

 /*
 ** ARPA    : jadpc!thewall!jca@nosc.mil | 13 + 1 = 228... 
 ** INTERNET: jca@thewall.cts.com        |
 **           jca@thewall.uucp           |           SIG-Sauer P228...
 ** UUCP    : nosc!jadpc!thewall!jca     |
 */
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: weapon identification
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:47:35 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

fjohnson@kinks.rutgers.edu (Floyd Johnson) writes:
>Do any of you know the make and caliber of a weapon called the "Street
>Sweeper". All I can surmise is that it's an automatic
>"intermediate"-somewhere in size between a pistol and a rifle.

It is a 12 ga. shotgun manufactured by Cobray. It is based on a South
African weapon. It has a 12 round drum magazine. Unless you are Arnold, it
requires two hands to operate (like a 'tommy gun'). Semi-auto of course.
They can be had for around $300.
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18111 alt.politics.clinton:930
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:08:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.220957.21524@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
> First off it is rather safer to walk down the streets of NI carrying a
> sign saying "The Rev Ian Paisley is the Pope's Gay lover" or some such
> than drive through Washington DC in an Armoured vehicle surrounded by
> security guards. Well not quite, but the murder rate in NI is
> insignificant compared to Washington or New York.

Imagine that!  And they all share Hallam-Baker's ideal gun laws in common.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: A Proposed FAQ For This Newsgroup...
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<LAMBERT.92Jul17060557@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<archer.79@utkux1.utk.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:30:13 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 1992 13:14:18 GMT, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>(T. Archer) said:

>>> The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934 as an anti-violence measure. >>> The violence didn't go away until prohibition did.

>>Pardon? When did prohibition end?

> Pardon my vaporous statement.  I mean that the violence related to the 
> bootleg liquor movement did not end until the Volkstead Act was repeal and 
> it was legal to produce, buy, and sell alcoholic beverages in the United 
> States again.

And pardon my unnecessarily elliptic question.  I meant that the sequence
implied by your original statement was 
1. NFA Act
2. No change in violence
3. Prohibition ends
4. Violence declines

but in fact the sequence was
1933 Prohibition ends
1934 NFA Act
1935 US homicide rate starts to fall

from this we can't tell which (if either) of the events caused the
decrease in homicide rates.

Tim
From: blosser_cy@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: PUBLIC APOLOGY (wuz: talk.politics.guns)
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:59:20 EDT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC

First of all I will admit to my stupidity and thoughtlessness in posting such
an irrational flame to your newsgroup. 

It was a product of a mind overtaxed by excess homework, and reading the junk
from 'alt.politics.clinton'--(I am embarassed to say some of the more radical
political idiologies there have seeped into my brain, warping my thought pro-
cesses and putting my sense-of-rationality on the blink). Had I been aware of
the gaping holes in logic and the breach of rationality within the argument--
I would not have posted it in the first place. 

Secondly, I would like to thank those that were quick to respond to this post
with calm, rational arguments and reprimandations, rather than quick-tempered
like-minded flames I have recieved in the past. Some of you are pretty sharp!

Thirdly, the political opinions espoused in the original post in no way refl-
ect my own...I just thought I would be a smart-ass, and post something really
controversial and negatory to this particular newsgroup, sit back...and watch
the flames roll in. Some of us cocky little computer brats sitting up late at
night in a vacant lab bored with nothing to do, derive some pleasure out of a
good flame-war. =)

Now as much as I would like to reply to all those who responded, I'm afraid I
don't have the time. 

As for this...

> 	I see this is going to be an impartial exposition, judging by the
> 	opening remarks. 
> 
> 	Sir, you have begun your post with several assumptions that I believe
> 	you will be hard pressed to prove. First you say that people (or did 
> 	you mean 'man' in the literal sense?) are inherently wicked.  I
> 	strongly disagree.  Look for evil and you will find it even where there
> 	is none. 

Explain Hitler. Explain Stalin. Explain Mai Lai. Explain the endless tragedies
of history and the cruel acts of violence committed against one another...what
is this, if not 'evil'? (perhaps we should debate this in private, or carry it
to another, more appropriate newsgroup...like 'soc.religion.christian'?) Mean-
while I'll let you return to your conversation.

> 	Appeals to the intellect require an intellect to appeal to...
 
              [brilliant--not to mention witty--reply follows]

>>Besides...flowers are a *lot* nicer than guns. 
>>
> 
> 	Uh huh.

Least we agree on SOMEthing. =)

Permit me to say one more thing--I can't express how *impressed* I was with all
the replies to my embarassing flame. Well-thought, well-constructed & extremely
well-written...perhaps Congress would do better to have some of you numbered in
their ranks (God knows how many mindless stupid idiots we have in there today).

Thanks again for your time and I apologize for disturbing you.

Christopher Blosser

P.S.	Richard, dude...are you satisfied now?
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Guns Permits and NRA Perceptions (Re: Media bias)
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Keywords: bias
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:27:11 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
 
> I would say that the permit system has worked pretty well in the case of
> automatic weapon ownership.
 
I think it depends on what do you mean by "has worked pretty well"? If you
mean it was so restrictive that it has kept full-autos out of the hands of
almost all law-abiding citizens, then yes it has done just that. But is
hasn't done squat to keep full-autos out of the hands of the bad-guys. And
this is the fundamental problem of gun-control.

We see the same effect for [illegal] drugs; bad-guys have all the drugs
they want, but law-abiding citizens that need them for medicinal purposes
can't get them.
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: smj@iti.org (Seth Johnson)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:34:45 GMT

>
>Touchy, aren't we?  Let's look at the whole picture.  Since the
>passage of the (in)famous Gun Control Act of 1968, people MUST
>buy their firearms within their state of residence.  Thus,
>Californians MUST buy handguns in California.  If waiting
>periods are so effective at stopping crime, then why hasn't 
>California, or any state that has a waiting period, shown
>a reduction in crime?  Waiting period supporters typically
>"sit down and shut up" themselves when hit with this question.
>Kinda negates the whole argument, huh?  Why worry about upping
>it from 15 to 30 days when OUTRIGHT BANS can't do anything
>to stop crime either?
>
Only Californians who purchase handguns LEGALLY are required to
purchase them IN California.  Most criminals purchase their
handguns on the street.  These weapons come from a number of
sources.  Some are stolen from California gun shops, and others
are (get ready for a shock here) purchased by illegal distributors
in OTHER STATES!!!  It will be impossible to control the violence on
our streets until the rules governing the sale of handguns are the
same in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (where handguns
are easy to buy right across the border in Maryland and Virginia).
D.C. has a handgun ban, but it only takes a fifteen minute drive
and a cooperative Maryland resident to get a handgun with no
waiting.
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns