HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:19:51 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

simnet@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Mark R Poulson) writes:
>fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
>> 
>> I doubt that the suicide rate is much different between teens
>> in gun-owning homes and those in non-gun-owning homes.
>> 
>> Has anyone studied this problem (and published on it)?
>
>In this morning's Seattle Post Intellignecer (13 August), there was an article
>relating to just this. A study, soon to be published in the JAMA, indicated

Actually, the study is in the New England Journal of Medicine.  JAMA
prints plenty of similar things, but they are not responsible for this
one.

Specifically: "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership", by
Arthur Kellermann and eight other people; in the August 13 1992 issue
of the NEJM, Vol 327 no 7, pp 467-472.

>idea how valid the study is (I think it compared King County Washington to
>some county in Tennessee for the demographics base).

The study covered King County, Washington (where I happen to live,
by the way :-) and Shelby County, Tennessee.  It was NOT primarily a
comparison of the two, however -- they simply used two demographically
diverse counties to widen the scope of the study.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: USA <==> USSR
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:44:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.221555.2705@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull) writes:
>
>    With all the hoopla about how guns should be banned.  Has anyone
>noticed how the USA is turining into what the USSR used to be? An 
>article in one of the gun mags said that they are considering allowing 
>citizens to by guns because of rising crime.
>
>   Makes one wonder just when we will be a dictatorship like they were.
>

Forget the source to this one,

Question: What is the major difference between the US & the USSR?

Answer:   The US still has a Communist Party.
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2  (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:36:14 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) /  5:01 pm  Aug 18, 1992 /
>Just a question here, was Tony trained with the MP5?  If not, why would
>they put a machinegun in his hands?  An inexperienced officer with a
>machinegun, and innocents to protect... (or for that matter, why do
>so even with an experienced officer?).  Why not a handgrenade?  (just
>being ridiculous, guys...).  A machinegun doesn't seem a logical choice
>for targeting, and stopping single targets... Too much chance of spraying
>around the room, and hitting non-combatants.  Something seems funny here.
>I think a semi-auto carbine would be a more reasonable weapon.  Any ideas?

Yes, my idea is that you are an armchair critic, and an ignorant one at
that.

Yes he was trained.  The fact that there was one, fatal shot fired sort
of shoots holes in your argument, now doesn't it?

BTW, the mp5 is a three shot burst assault rifle, not a true machine
gun.

>> Bear in mind,
>> Doctors and hospitals deal with life and death situations every day.
>> They also kill about 160,000 people that wouldn't otherwise die every
>> year.

>And doctors are held responsible if their methods were excessive,
>or incompetant.  And I believe a doctor could be charged with
>Negligent Homicide, were he sufficeintly incompetant.

Do the math fool, If we put 160,000 doctors in jail every year, how long
would we have doctors?  You said WHAT about doctors being held
accountable?  Not very damn often!  Only when they do something REALLY
obvious.

You have a blind faith in the medical system.  You should apply some of
your skepticism about the legal system to the medical system.  You
probably should have more fear of your doctor than your local police.
You stand a much better chance of being killed by your doctor.....

Actually I'm beginning to believe that much of the problem with this
thread is that people are equating all them out west states.  This isn't
California.  I think I'll move this to a separate thread and once again
lay out what I know about this.  I've learned a new thing or two.  Look
for a thread 'Premeditated murder, part 3'

Rick.
Date: Friday, 21 Aug 1992 15:59:49 EDT
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Vigilanteism NOT!
 <4400221@iftccu.boeing.com> <5762@transfer.stratus.com>

In article <5762@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) says:
>
>Now.  Does anyone see any justification for the headline that the
>T&G gratuitously slapped onto the story?

No, but truth has never been a stumbling block to the media.
Time has routinely bleated "Vigilante! Vigilante!" with reference
to anyone who stood guard over their home/family/business during the
Los Angeles riot.

W. K. Gorman
NRA Life
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:03:36 GMT

This one deserves it's own response:
Dan Sorenson writes:
> Robert Osborne writes:
> >Any police officer who is told 'building A contains people who wish
> >to kill him' and acts accordingly is breaking the law.  The police
> >are not soldiers and are NOT executioners.  Police officers arrest
> >suspects for trial and only get to defend themselves if in clear
> >and present danger.
> 
> 	Could you elaborate on this?  I assume a clear and present
> danger is already given if the occupants are known to be killers, or
> to have exchanged fire with police forces.

Dan, you've missed the point so often I'm beginning to wonder if you
are stupid or being deliberately dense.

A police officer can NEVER know ahead of time that he WILL be in clear
and present danger.  According to the law everybody is innocent until
proven guilty so how could Tony KNOW that there was a killer inside.
The SUSPECT (do you know what that means Dan?) wasn't even there
so how could Tony be in clear and present danger from innocent
bystanders!

Tony could not have been in clear and present danger because the
'danger' wasn't even home at the time.

If Tony 'interprets' the behaviour of a panic stricken woman who has
just had her house broken into by armed men as something deserving
shooting he is, at best,  criminally incompetent.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19477 alt.politics.bush:2013
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:56:52 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <16rd1fINN60l@agate.berkeley.edu> labc-1ad@e260-3g.berkeley.edu (Eric van Bezooijen) writes:
>
>If you ever stroll around in Berkeley, you will immediately be assailed by
>vast legions of religious nuts who think that their way to salvation is to
>cram every one of THEIR beliefs down YOUR throat, regardless about how you
>feel about that.  They insult us (students), for being "un-clean" and rant
>and rave ceaselessly.  Luckily, we have a contingent of homeless people here
>led by the Hate man to mock them, so that what would ordinarily be a very
>annoying happening turns into free entertainment.

Ahh, those lazy afternoons sitting in front of Sproul!



--
But this is.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:58:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.223540.12519@crash> jca@crash.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes:
>cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>> [ Bandini Hill deleted... ]
>
>Another Canadian who doesn't understand and never will.  First
>Aussieland now our northern border.
>--

No. This guy is a student from Singapore. He complained about Canadian laws
without knowing anything about it. Apparently he's not happy because
there is no Big Brother watching here.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Send Reports of Police Shootings to the SC
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:52:45 GMT

In article <=05mhg-.feustel@netcom.com>, feustel@netcom.com
(David Feustel) writes:

> I suggest that people send copies of each police swat team shooting of
> a innocent person to each memer of the Supreme Court and to their
> congressional representatives with a running total of the number of
> innocent people shot by these Gestapo types.

A fine idea.  Does anybody have these statistics available/compiled?

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Send Reports of Police Shootings to the SC
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 00:11:25 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

I suggest that people send copies of each police swat team shooting of
a innocent person to each memer of the Supreme Court and to their
congressional representatives with a running total of the number of
innocent people shot by these Gestapo types.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:42:47 GMT

In article <cthong.714250940@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:
> 
> >While shooting someone in the arm/leg is a lousy way to stop them,
> >they're still at some risk of death.  Anti-self-defense folk sure
> >are blood thirsty.  They want to kill attackers, they just don't
> >want to stop them.
>
>  let me get this straight - stop them but don't kill them.
> don't shoot them in the arms or the legs.
> boy . you sure must be a REAL good shot if you can think of AND hit 
> another 'disabling' area of the body eh?

A shot to the arm or leg may not be adequate to stop and attacker, but
might kill him in the long run.  Additionally, the arm and leg shots
are more difficult (small target).  If you wish to stop an attacker,
you will probably shoot him in the middle of the chest;  It's a big
target, and has more immediate effect than poking holes through muscle.

Basically, if you don't fear your attacker enough to shoot him in
the chest, and stop him, you are probably not justified in shooting.

> >>or maybe it's the training phillosophy behind gun clubs and instructors-
> >>either a vital parts shot or you fail.
> 
> >It is a failure if you don't stop the attacker.

And arm or leg shots are not likely to stop an attacker.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:58:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <92Aug22.055354edt.177@smoke.cs.toronto.edu> quoctp@cs.toronto.edu writes:
>In the constitution of the U.S., the Fifth Amendment states that
>no person can be deprived of his/her property without "due process
>of law". Does this mean that a government (federal, state or city)
>can pass a law, then can deprive someone of his/her property by using that
>law? (I have gun confiscations in mind). Does passing a law saying that you
>have to destroy something that you currently own, without compensation
>violate this Amendment?

Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court has ruled that states may use
their power to outlaw nuisances to force people to destroy property
without compensation.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:48:06 GMT

In article <5770@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
writes:
>I'm confused, guys.  I can't see that the Brady Bill is saying what 
>some of you folks say it does.
>
>I heard the claim that the clock doesn't start ticking on the waiting
>period until the chief acknowledges receipt of the request.  I don't
>see that ANYWHERE.

It's not that it doesn't start ticking.  Here's what it says:

  "(S)(1) It shall be unlawful for an licensed importer, licensed
  manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver,or transfer a handgun to
  an individual who is not licensed under section 923, unless --
       :
        "(ii)(I) the transferor has received written verification that
            the chief law enforcement officer has received the statement, 7
            days have elapsed from the date the transferee furnished the
            statement, and the transferor has not received information from
            the chief law enforcement officer that receipt or possession of
            the handgun by the transferee would be in violation of Federal,
            State, or local law; or

            "(II) the transferor has received notice from the chief law
            enforcement officer that the officer has no information
            indicating that receipt or possession of the handgun by the
            transferee would violate Federal, State, or local law;

In other words, the police have to respond, at least to acknowledge that
they've received the paperwork, before you can get your handgun.  This
gives them de facto veto power because all they have to do is not
acknowledge receiving the application.  THAT is unacceptable.

>I also heard the criticism that it doesn't require a background check.
>While this is technically true, it is also technically true that the
>waiting period is clearly "for the purpose of" a background check.
>If one gets done, you get the gun immediately, and if one isn't done, 
>because your chief is lazy or stubborn, you still get the gun after the 
>seven days are up.

And a waiting period without a background check can't possibly accomplish
anything.  It is harassment, pure and simple.

     don
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The "Poof" Paradigm (was Re: Guns and Skeptics)
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:50:36 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

>>3-Anyone who believe that the police and military are there to protect
>>and serve is not living in the same world I am.  But, then again,
>
> The police are there to maintain some degree of order, protect
>property of the better off from damage, etc.  So they are there
>to protect.

I haven't been able to track down the owners of the above comments, but
I think it might be worthwhile to discuss the roles of civilians and
police.

In a medical emergency, the role of the citizen is first responder.  At
Boeing, for example, 15% of the work force (and this might be a state or
federal requirement by now, for all I know) is trained in first aid and
CPR.  Their job is to keep somebody alive and the situation stable until
the professionals arrive.

I myself carry a serious first aid kit in my car.  To date this action
and my training are directly responsible for saving the life of at least
one individual.  My role was as first responder and to keep that person
alive until the professionals got there.  In this case it was a ways out
in the sticks and I doubt an unaided person with a severed femoral
artery would have survived the 15-20 minutes it took the 'professionals'
to arrive.

What then is my role in a criminal assault of some sort?  Do I just
stand aside and let myself or others under my protection die?  I wasn't
required to in the life and death situations above, why here?  No, I get
my emergency rescue equipment and hold the line until the professionals
arrive on the scene.  Depending on where you live, this may take minutes
to hours.  In any event, like the serious injury above, if action isn't
taken within SECONDS some innocent may die.  Why do you want to take
away the best emergency rescue equipment?  (Assuming that you WANT to
take it away of course.)

Why do I get the feeling that most of those who want to remove firearms
from the hands of the lawful citizen would scream bloody murder at the
removal of first aid kits and red cross training?  I'll bet they would
be upset at the thought of somebody who had the knowledge and ability to
aid them but not the tools.  What if the tourniquet in my first aid kit
had been restricted?  (It could be used to strangle a defenseless child
for example.)  In the case of outright amputation of the limb, pressure
isn't much good.  I had to hold the femoral artery shut with my hand
while I applied the tourniquet.

Of course this was 15 years ago.  In these days of AIDS, these might not
be rhetorical questions.

At any rate, I feel that the role of the citizen is always legally and
morally required to be that of first responder and damage control to
stabilize the situation until the professionals arrive.  If somebody
wants to go to the effort of lugging around a first aid kit, a fire
extinguisher or a gun why shouldn't they be allowed to?  Any and all of
these items can be used to save or kill.

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jimc@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Cox)
Subject: Re: Concealed Carry Bill in Texas?
Keywords: CCW concealed carry
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin Tx.
Distribution:  usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:57:33 GMT

In article <77976@ut-emx.uucp> mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
>
>A few weeks ago a bill was introduced in the Texas Legislature to establish
>a CCW permit system in Texas.  Unfortunately, I only got the ten-second
>liberal-media-oriented "let's just mention it, but give no specifics, and never
>bring it up again" news report, so I don't know what is going on with it.
>Does anyone have more information on this, perhaps even text and/or specifics?

In the current issue, July/August, of the Texas State Rifle Association "TSRA
Sportsman", Dr. James T. Brown, Legislative Director reports:

"There will be a meeting of the Public Safety Committee to make a bill draft
on the issue of who may carry a firearm.  This will be a meeting of the 
committee and not a hearing that will take testimony.  I will attend as
an observer.  At a previous meeting of this committee, public testimony
was given.  In conjunction with that meeting there was a demonstration of 
various types of firearms at the DPS range.  TSRA past president, Reeves 
Jungkind conducted the demonstrations and dispelled many misconceptions 
previously held by some committee members."

Typos are mine.  Note that Dr. Brown is a Austin resident, so he is just
a phone call away.  Yea, I am going to call and see if I can help in 
any way, you know calling, writing letters that sort of stuff.  I really
want to see something here in Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Jim Cox                            Internet: jimc@bartman.sps.mot.com
Phone: (512) 891-3182          UUCP Address: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!otis!jimc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Policing Ourselves
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:37:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

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 best NRA activity (IMO) are its educational services.  If backing 
allows, I would like to see it promote a gun safety standard.  Passing such 
a course would be a prerequisite to purchasing/registering a gun.  The last 
thing that I would like to see is our government handling this...but that's 
what I see on the horizon if the responsible gun owners in this country 
continue to assert that buying a gun is like buying a fishing pole!

The SCUBA industry polices itself quite effectively.  One must have been 
certified as a competent diver before renting/purchasing SCUBA gear.  I 
certainly believe that I have the right to own a gun, but with that right 
comes the responsibility to "shoot safe".  A licensing program for firearms 
is not a bad thing - but please, don't leave it up to the government!

                                                  James S. Zakany
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: quoctp@cs.toronto.edu
Subject: A question on U.S. Constitution
Organization: University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: 22 Aug 92 09:54:22 GMT

In the constitution of the U.S., the Fifth Amendment states that
no person can be deprived of his/her property without "due process
of law". Does this mean that a government (federal, state or city)
can pass a law, then can deprive someone of his/her property by using that
law? (I have gun confiscations in mind). Does passing a law saying that you
have to destroy something that you currently own, without compensation
violate this Amendment?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns