HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:03:13 GMT

Why has Kevin Darcy been cross-posting this to talk.abortion? I just 
noticed this, and I don't see the connection... (My appologies to
everyone there who doesn't care about gun control...)

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense...
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:37:36 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / tms@mimsy.boeing.com /  7:11 pm  Sep 13, 1992 /
>     Just for the record, a karateka who used to train at my dojo
>faced a group of thugs, and came out unharmed while the thugs were
>all incapacitated. A few days later a friend of the thugs went
>after him with a handgun; the karateka recieved a minor hand wound,
>the attacker ended up dead from masssive head trauma - his cranium
>was introduced to the wall, then repeatedly to the ground, with high
>velocity.

This brings up a good point.  A really good time for a draw and first
shot hit is around 1 second.  Most of us will be closer to 1.5 to two.
This is assuming training and practice, and how many of us REALLY train
and practice?  Hell, most ranges won't even let you practice a draw, you
either have to find an isolated place where you can shoot, or practice
at home, dry firing.  (This last IS a good training method, and the
only way to start!)

A sixty year old man with arthritis can cross 7 yards and begin to carve
you with a knife in about 1.8 to 2 seconds.  (The average is about 1.4
for people of all ages.)  Also, unless you are lucky enough to get a
central nervous system shot, it is going to take anywhere from 3 to 12
seconds to incapacitate a person with a heart shot.  Now the person MAY
decide to sit down and cry for that period of time, or he/she may just
decide to try to keep killing you for that period of time.

Most defense handgun combat take place at 7 yards or less.  If you are
really serious about carrying a gun you've got to get over the Hollywood
mentality that the gun is just a magic wand that you wave and the
problem is over.  (Actually, it is a good thing that many bad guys think
it is, that way you don't actually have to fire and enlighten them.)
Handguns are certainly the best tool for the inexperienced person in
most situations, but you've got to learn their limitations.

In the case of our knife attacker, you'd better have a plan.  Assuming
you are real quick and do manage to get of a shot or two, you'd better
be at least planning to step out of his way as he falls.  Remember, the
object isn't to take them with you!  It is for you to survive.

Learning how to use your gun is a good first step at learning to defend
yourself.  Next you probably want to learn some handgun retention.  Then
you should bone up on some empty handed techniques.  They may be
different than 'typical' martial arts techniques in that they are often
aimed at buying you time to get to your gun.  You don't need to spend
years learning martial arts.  You can learn the essentials in a week or
two and maintain them by reviewing them a couple of times a year.
Unless you get real unlucky and come up against an 'expert' that should
be enough.  Oh, a knife/counter knife class would probably be in order
too.

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull)
Subject: Re: HCI printed it, so...
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:24:32 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto,CA

: >In California
: >   last year, nearly 6,000 would-be gun buyers were turned down after a
: >   background check.  
: 
:      I wonder who this is according to.  I also wonder what the percentage
: was between buyers and those turned down.
: 
: >   And most of them were convicted criminals!
: 
:      *Most* of them?  What were the others?  Just poor luckless souls
: harrasessed by the system?  


   I think the 6000 figure is close. I'll try to get the figures 
and post them. The stats on the number of applications for firearm transfers
and the number of denials and various reasons for the denials was printed
in The Firing Line this year.(The Firing Line is a newsletter form the Cal.
Pistol and Rifle Assn.)
If I remember right, the figure for gun purchases in CA last yrear was about
500,000. Yes, that's a half-a-million.

RP






Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Subject: Re: Bogus Statistics Again
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:21:35 GMT

In <1992Sep9.184346.2296@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.111518.26548@sinix.UUCP> ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone) writes:
>>Well, criminals in Switzerland < which has the highest incidence of violence
>>with hand guns, other than the US of course> don't seem to get guns.  In
>>Switzerland last year there were 7 murders with hand guns.  In the US there 
>>were over 1000.  Why? The NRA keeps guns accessible to criminals.  Look to
>>other countries if you don't believe me. That NRA/Right-wingnut talk about
>>your rights being stripped away is ridiculous.  

>Is it really true that the U.S. is the only country with more than 7 handgun
>murders per year? Switzerland is in second place with 7? (By the way, we
>had more than 10,000, not "more than 1000" --- don't sell us short over
>here. Give credit where it is due. :-)  )

Considering there is about 60 murders involving handguns in Canada
every year, someone doesn't have their stats right.

-- 
Greg Booth BSc                        | Diligentia-Vis-Celeritas
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS    |  	Incolumitas
Motorola Mobile Data Division         | 
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com cgb003@email.comm.mot.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:08:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.155451.22202@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.214220.14700@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Since 1934, guns that can be readily converted to full-auto have been
>>regulated as if they were converted.
>
>I'm pretty sure this is not true.

It is true.  Look at the evolution of the NFA law; it hasn't changed.

>Open-bolt semi-auto's may still be
>possessed without being registered as full auto.

Those guns were defined as being "not readily converted".

>Manufacture of open-bolt semi-auto's has been forced to a stop.

Because their products after a certain date were defined as "readily
converted".

The feds didn't have to do that, and arguably couldn't do so legally,
but that's all they did.

>And I believe the date for what you're thinking of is not correct.
>Weren't open-bolt semi-autos, which are easy to convert according to
>BATF, legal up until sometime in the 80s ?

The standard for "readily converted" has changed over time.

That change hasn't produced any benefits, but ....

>>Typical
>>instantaneous cycle rates start from 600 shots/minute and go up, but
>>the effective rate of fire is much lower because it is dominated by
>>reload time.
>
>Not true for belt-fed, or similar, weapons.

Right.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: simnet@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Mark R Poulson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Summary: Deserve's got nothing to do with it....
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:04:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

In article <1992Aug26.225159.9640@stortek.com>, vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
.
. stuff deleted where "they" indicates the police raiding houses
.
>  You might say, "do they deserve to die for making a simple mistake".  Well
>  I say, did the woman in WA. deserve to die because of the PD mistake? How
>  about the dozens of others that this happens to every year.

As Clint Eastwood says in the recently released THE UNFORGIVEN....

	"Deserve has got nothing to do with it"

Think about that, as there are really very few people who die that deserve
it. Some people think no one ever deserves to die. But people die all the time
through accidents, defective body parts (self inflicted or genetic), or
deliberate killing.

		Mark
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: nra bbs open now!!!
Date: 9 Sep 92 04:31:18 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:


>No, Tanya has no NRA sanction and doesn't get any of thier money.  What's 
>your beef with her?  She sounds like a different person than the Tanya I 
>know.  What happened?

I've been told by others that the bbs is sanctioned by NRA so I'm going
to have to call around and try to find out.

What happened?  I called her a couple of years ago when we were 
organizing the state and signing up members at a record rate (about 500
per gun show or thereabouts.)  She was peddling some kind of dbase application
to manage NRA membership lists.  I told her if she'd send me some info
I might personally buy a copy for GSSA.  I mentioned that it might 
be more productive for the cause if her program were given to state groups
instead of selling so as not to deplete the volunteer treasuries.  It
was like a switch flipped.  She informed me she was making her living
from that software, that I was a son-of-a-bitch (her words, our first
ever conversation) for trying to steal her livelyhood and to never
get on her BBS (The Bullet'n'Board).  Then she hung up.

That's why I said "oh my gawd."

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Follow-up: the Seattle buy-back program
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:23:38 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep03.010535.19980@microsoft.com>, alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
> On 36-year-old man wrote on a survey sheet that he turned in a gun because
> "I did not want to be involved with guns anymore and I am afraid someone
> in my house might get hurt."

Geez, then I don't want you involved with guns, either.  We all win.
-- 

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: jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: Medar, Inc.     Farmington Hills, MI
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:43:27 GMT

In article <1751@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.200408.21293@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>|In article <1992Aug25.155111.7833@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> 
>|rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>|>|  In particular, in consultation both with gun manufacturers[1] and
>|>|  concerned citizen groups[2], the Bush Administration has:
>|>
>|>[1] Ruger. Bill Ruger.
>|
>|That's "Brady Bill Ruger" or "Bill 'Benedict Arnold' Ruger".  With
>|friends like ol' Ruger. . . . Hell, we don't even need enemies.  Note
>|also that "Gun Digest" accepts tons of advertising from Ruger and always
>|features one of his products on the cover.  The 1992 Gun Digest says,
>|"The gun owners protesting Ruger & Mossberg carried a big banner, but didn't
>|make much of an impression."  Perhaps the 1993 Gun Digest will have 
>|another "Ruger Product" on the cover, like the text of an "assault weapons"
>|ban with the President's signature on it.
>
>Unfortunately, inside the front cover of this months _American Rifleman_
>there is an ad from Ruger touting their Ruger Express turn-bolt rifle,
>a 'nice' gun that someday will become a dreaded sniper rifle (or perhaps
>it groups so loosly it will never make the definition).
>
>`If you want the best, you owe yourself a Ruger Express'
>
>When pigs sprout wings and fly...
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

Got to be careful with that comment these days.  I understand there's
been some "deviant" wildlife spotted in an area of the (previous) east
block where radiation is (was?) relatively high :-).

Moving right along...

Sorry for this -- I'm sure the subject has been thoroughly discussed,
but I've been far to busy to keep up with this newsgroup, my American
Rifleman issues, etc..

What is it Bill Ruger has done?  I'm especially curious being as I've
always been a Ruger (product) fan.  But this could change *real* *quick*.

Anyone who cares to explain may email if he/she feels that (re-)posting
the answer would be overly redundant.

Thanks.

>-- 
>pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
>                      If all else fails, try:
>         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
>WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 


-- 
Jim Seymour				| "If NT is the answer, it must
...uunet!medar!jseymour			|  be a really silly question"
jseymour@medar.com			|      Warner Losh
CIS: 72730,1166  GEnie: jseymour	|      Computer Power Software
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: ICLU Commission on the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control (Long!)
Date: 8 Sep 92 01:49:37 GMT
Organization: Victoria University of Technology

In article <4400247@iftccu.boeing.com> bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
>
>I believe that this is the first year that AIDS related deaths have passed
>deaths from firearms (all causes.) Its going to climb fast too.  With 
>around a 10 year incubation period, after an HIV positive test, (last I 
>was told anyway) and 1,000,000 KNOWN cases now, it's going to get a lot 
>worse fast.  
>
>With any luck, some of the focus will go off the 1400 or so accidental 
>firearms deaths each year.   Get ready to register the sexual organs of 
>your preference.  :-)
>
I wish Susan was still around. She would have something to
say about this pathetic attempt at humour!

>There was an article in the October issue of HANDGUNS that stated that 
>most of that 1400 accidental deaths due to firearms,  89% I believe, were 
>from other than handguns.   This is consistent with figures I've heard 
>that most accidental deaths (66-75%) are hunting accidents that will tend 
>to involve long arms.  
>
>Citizens kill around 2800 criminals each year or about 14X the number of 
>accidental deaths due to handguns.

So?
Cheers,

Dave
-- 
" And so they took Ned Kelley and hanged him in the jail,
  For he fought singlehanded although in iron mail.
  And no man singlehanded can hope to break the bars;
  It's a thousand like Ned Kelly who'll hoist the flag of stars"
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Free the Brady Bill flops
Date: 9 Sep 92 04:23:19 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

pat@fitz.uucp (Patrick Fitzgerald) writes:

>Here in Huntsville, Al, the "Free the Brady Bill" fiasco got almost zero
>press.  The only mention was a picture from Atlanta in the "local" section
>of the paper. (?)

>However, it was not a picture of Sarah Brady's pontificating, it was a
>picture of the protesters marching outside the building!

>Good job, Atlanta folks!

I'll pass on the thanks.  I unfortunately had an emergency come up or 
you would have seen my mug in that bunch :-)

I would like to point out that the demonstrators were members of 
Citizens for Safe Government, now associated with Gun Owners of America.
We are the ones who got kicked out of the state NRA group for actually
doing something political instead of sitting on our duffs and/or 
compromising on gun control as NRA national did.  The state NRA group
now claims to be the proactive anti-gun-control group in the state and 
yet one must ask, where were they?  Probably down with Gov Zell trying to
figure out again how to sell the gun owners of Georga down the road
like they almost got away with last year.

Anyone reading this who lives in Georgia and who is interested in helping
fight the future gun control battles that are inevitable should contact
George Helms at 404 874 6805 or me.  The worst thing about the GSSA debacle
last year was they got all our money we'd raised so we're working strictly
from the grass roots again.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:45:43 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <82472@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
> The point that Nick makes about getting "press" is important.  As one of the
> "anti's", I feel that such programs serve to dramatize the role of guns in
> our society.  To show that not everyone who owns a gun is happy with it.  For
> some people, the possession of the gun alone was greater than their fear of
> criminals.  Gun possession, for these people, went from the lesser of two evils
> to the greater of two evils.  The question is, how many gun owners really want
> to live in a society where gun possession is unrestricted?  NRA propaganda would
> have us believe that they all do.

Let me recap this argument.

1) Some gun owners don't want to own guns.
2) Some gun owners fear guns more than criminals.
3) "A society where gun possession is unrestricted" is indistinguishable from
   "a society which forces the above people to own guns."
4) Therefore, we should restrict gun ownership of all people, even those who
   want to own guns and those who fear criminals more than guns.

Your logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that stinks.
-- 

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: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 15:26:42 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <1992Sep2.041624.20987@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:
>lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>
>>If you want to find out how often people stop crimes with guns there
>>are two obvious ways to find out.
[ ... ]
>>2. You can ask criminals how often they were thwarted by armed
>>victims.  This is what Wright & Rossi did.  34% of the criminals that
>>they surveyed admitted this.  These criminals had an average of 10
>>prior arrests, so if the 34% who had been thwarted had an average of
>>two thwartings each, it would appear that being arrested is 15 times
>>as likely for these criminals as being stopped by an armed victim.
>>Combine this with about 988,000 arrests per year (this number from
>>Kleck's "Crime Control" paper) and we get a (very rough) estimate of
>>70,000 crimes stopped each year with guns.
>
>The extrapolation is a bit rubbery.  You're assuming, I think, that every
>crime results in an arrest, and I'd be very surprised if that were the
>case.  The important thing is not the number of arrests but the number
>of offences.

The total number of offences in the U.S. is about 33,000,000 per year.
I doubt that all cases would be subject to being thwarted by an armed
citizen -- e.g., indecent exposure  :-)   -- and no doubt someone will
step forward with a better number, but 988,000 isn't in the ball park.
--------
The 2nd Amendment is about sovereignty, not duck hunting.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lydic@ka8lvz.uucp (lydic)
Subject: Re: Text of S. 2913 (Chafee handgun confiscation)
Organization: Rarely
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:44:26 GMT


>To prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, purchase, transfer,
>receipt, possession, or transport of handguns and handgun ammunition, with
                                                   ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
>certain exceptions.

   Since Thompson Center makes handguns that chamber nearly every cartridge
   made, this could be pretty encompassing

>13        "(b) ADDITIONAL TERMS.-- As used in this sub-
>14   chapter:

>3              "'Handgun ammunition' means ammunition
>4         that is designed for use primarily in a handgun.

	   This makes it perfectly clear

>1         "(e) REIMBURSEMENT.-The Secretary shall pay to
>2  a person who delivers a handgun under subsection (a) on
>3  or prior to the date that is 180 days after the date of
>4  enactment of this subchapter an amount equal to the 
>5  greater of-
>6              "(1) $25; or
>7              "(2) the fair market value of the gun on May
>8         31, 1992, as determined by the Secretary.

              the fair market value ... as determined by the Secretary.
	      (Just what I thought ... $25.00)

>14        "(a) VIOLATION OF SECTION 942.-(1) Except as
>15 provided in paragraph (2), a person who violates section
>16 942 shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not
>17 more than 5 years, or both.

  Great - I've only ever had one speeding ticket in 40 years, & this makes
  me a felon.  I guess my wife & kids can go on the dole and the bank can
  take back the house and car.  Of course they'll have to let out some
  violent drug offenders to make room for all of us.

   -.. .

   John W. Lydic Jr              lydic@ka8lvz.cmhnet.org

   ... -.-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:54:51 GMT
Organization: Prozac Shooting Team "Better Shooting Through Chemistry"

In article <1992Sep12.214220.14700@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>Since 1934, guns that can be readily converted to full-auto have been
>regulated as if they were converted.

I'm pretty sure this is not true.  Open-bolt semi-auto's may still be
possessed without being registered as full auto.  Manufacture of open-bolt
semi-auto's has been forced to a stop.  An open-bolt semi-auto M-10 was
for sale by a dealer at a gun show I attended recently, the price was $750.
That's high when you consider a full-auto version costs a couple hundred less.

And I believe the date for what you're thinking of is not correct.
Weren't open-bolt semi-autos, which are easy to convert according to
BATF, legal up until sometime in the 80s ?

>Typical
>instantaneous cycle rates start from 600 shots/minute and go up, but
>the effective rate of fire is much lower because it is dominated by
>reload time.

Not true for belt-fed, or similar, weapons.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns