HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: reduction of availability
Date: 24 Dec 1992 12:15:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, proett@tailspin.nas.nasa.gov (Thomas M. Proett) says:


>This may be explained in a FAQ or something, but I have not seen it so...
>Why is it assumed that making guns less easy to obtain will not "affect
>the right people"?  


>Someone posted a transcription of a poster that
>gave statistics about the number of murders done in various countries
>where guns are not generally available and then showed the number for
>the US.  The US had a gigantic number in proportion to the rest.

	This list is very selective.  It omits countries with higher
murder rates and more restrictive laws, and also countries with 
lower murder rates and less restricive laws.


>Doesn't this show some correlation to "more guns" ==> "more murder"?

	_If_ the list were made complete (re above note), and 
it still bore out the same trend, then yes, it would show a 
correlation.  Correlation != causation, of course. 

If it showed a before and after comparison for each country re
the onset of their gun laws and how their murder rate changes
then one could point to some causation.

Jim Del Vecchio
From: nahst6+@pitt.edu (Nathan A Horstman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Here's the problem
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:42:41 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <jrh.2b36d4a7-e@mustang.dell.com> jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard) writes:
>for a minute, an effort that obviously pained him, followed by a claim that I
>have never heard before:  "George Washington smoked pot.  It's in his memoirs."
>
>I have no idea if that is true or not, and I don't really care at this point,
>he's been dead far too long to prosecute.  I simply said "Well, if he had 
>thought it was as important to keep that right as the RKBA, I assume he would
>have pushed to put it in the constitution".  I know, a weak comeback, but I
>was caught offguard by his claim, and I don't put any effort into learning 
>the precedents for drug legalization.  The only thing that stuck me funny is,
>if this is really a common argument that they use (the firearm reference),
>one could assume that a lot of drug dealers are anti-HCI.  Perhaps we can get
>them to join the NRA with the money they make off their clients. :)

Drug dealers WANT guns to be illegal.  Then they can sell them on the black
market also--probably more profitable and marketable than drugs are.

Nathan

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       G  O       H  O  U  S  T  O  N 
<<      Nathan A. Horstman      >>  OOOO  IIIIII LL     EEEEEE RRRRR   SSSS  ||
<<   University of Pittsburgh   >> OO  OO   II   LL     EE     RR  RR SS     ||
<< in%"nahst6@vms.cis.pitt.edu" >> OO  OO   II   LL     EEEE   RRRRR   SSSS  ||
<<      nahst6+@pitt.edu        >> OO  OO   II   LL     EE     RR RR      SS ||
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  OOOO  IIIIII LLLLLL EEEEEE RR  RR  SSSS  oo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: se08+@andrew.cmu.edu (Seth Adam Eliot)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgiveness
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:46:04 GMT
Organization: Doctoral student, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.talk.politics.guns: 30-Dec-92 TIME is on the
ropes, asks .. by Dan Sorenson@iastate.edu 
[..snip..]
>         Instead the guy on the phone read my letter to Time, Inc to
> me, interjecting how Time, Inc has been the subject of major thrashing
> on these and other points, and how the latest board meeting has
> determined that the purpose of the magazine is to make money, not to
> promote any specific viewpoint.  It was quite convincing.
[..snip..]

That's incredible!  When you consdier that most of their telemerketing
is done in mass quanitites by (probably contracted) herds of
telemarketing people that may or may not know that TIME is a news
magazine and not the offical rag of the wtachmakers of America....
...that they took the time to call you and address a SPECIFIC letter!

could you post that letter for us to see (if it's conveniently
electronically stored)?

-Seth


__________________________________________________________________________
"Why am I dangerous?...
                    ...because I'm right!"     -Rush Limbaugh

Seth Eliot                    Dept of Material Science and Engineering
                              Carnegie Mellon Univerity,   Pittsburgh, PA
ARPA    :eliot+@cmu.edu       |------------------------------------------
   or    se08+@andrew.cmu.edu |
Bitnet:  se08%andrew@cmccvb   |      
------------------------------|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The Knee Jerks in MA
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:44:00 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: earlw@Apple.COM's message of 19 Dec 92 20:29:00 GMT

In article <75777@apple.apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:


   In article <1gtnp7INNeql@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
   >...
   >This is the usual argument you get from the gun crowd: Killers will always 
   >kill, no matter what the laws are. 
   >...
   >But that just isn't so. For example, what if the Montana sniping suspect had 
   >been forced to leave the state for his semiautomatic? 
   >
   >And what if he had found God on his trip, got lost or just never came back? 
   >...

%   If one human is intent on killing another, don't you agree they just might
%   keep trying until they succeed?  If you block one of their routes to success
%   does that mean you stopped them?  Just what can you do to stop someone
%   from killing you anyway?  Deny them access to guns?  You're trying to solve
%   the symptom, not the disease.

No just lower proabilities. If a person wanted to kill me say with a
machete and I see him coming I can get away. Bullets run faster than
people. Guns are more effective at killing than other weapons.
Real conversation stoppers.

If I walk around with gun , visibly displayed and others do likewise
than some homicidal asshole is going to think twice about wanton
firing for he just might be shot before he shoots anyone.
Again the probability is lowered.

Armed camp society or reduction of availability. Take your pick.
The current situation is unacceptable.


-sjm
--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: stlee@eos.ncsu.edu (STEVEN TUN-HOU LEE)
Subject: A .edu'er
Originator: stlee@c00505-119rd.eos.ncsu.edu
Keywords: alert, prof
Reply-To: stlee@eos.ncsu.edu (STEVEN TUN-HOU LEE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 07:50:54 GMT


Please don't lump us all together.  Some of us actually are capable
of thinking for ourselves.

Rusty, the clueless poster.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard)
Subject: Re: Here's the problem
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:41:11 GMT

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>The following came from talk.politics.drugs but I thought it illustrates
>quite starkly what is wrong with the criminal justice system.  Amazing
>that is is considered twice as bad to own a chemical as to rob someone
>using a weapon.

[wizbang charts deleted]

Yeah, I suppose that is because we have declared "WAR ON DRUGS", and have
yet to declare war on GUNS.  Of course, declaring war on them seems to have
convinced a lot of drug dealers to stock up on heavy artillery.  :)

This brings to mind (for no obvious reason) a discussion I had a few nights
ago with an obvious -- shall I say it?  Ok.. the L-word... -- liberal who
was trying to justify legalizing drugs to make the problem go away.  Somehow, 
I still don't understand the exact case he made, he used the pro-gun reasoning
to justify his position.  The basics were the belief that if you outlaw guns,
only outlaws have guns, and the same thing applies to cocaine and other
illegal drugs.  I was stunned, but after seeing Clinton elected, this was 
by far easier to grasp, I had been immunized to such obvious stupidity.

My response was simple..  "I see no Right to Bear Drugs in the Bill of Rights,
so I don't think the people can claim they have any SPECIFIC right to drugs.
Of course, there are lots of general broad references to freedom, but of
course nothing anywhere near as clear as the 2nd.  He then was forced to think
for a minute, an effort that obviously pained him, followed by a claim that I
have never heard before:  "George Washington smoked pot.  It's in his memoirs."

I have no idea if that is true or not, and I don't really care at this point,
he's been dead far too long to prosecute.  I simply said "Well, if he had 
thought it was as important to keep that right as the RKBA, I assume he would
have pushed to put it in the constitution".  I know, a weak comeback, but I
was caught offguard by his claim, and I don't put any effort into learning 
the precedents for drug legalization.  The only thing that stuck me funny is,
if this is really a common argument that they use (the firearm reference),
one could assume that a lot of drug dealers are anti-HCI.  Perhaps we can get
them to join the NRA with the money they make off their clients. :)

(For those that have been awake too long, take this with a grain of salt)

-- 
Randy Howard            _o	    @'s: jrh@dell.com
Dell Computer Corp.     \<,	    !'s: ...!uunet!dellunix!jrh
______________________()/ ()______________________________________________


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:55:18 GMT

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>Well, let's see.  Two months ago, a state police officer stopped a man
>for speeding.  The man's target permit became visible as he offered his
>license, and an illegal search of the car followed.  The police found an
>expensive pistol belonging to the man's mother.  They determined that he
>was not on his way to a sporting event, so they confiscated the pistol
>and charged the man under Bartley-Fox.  Bartley-Fox says specifically
>that you cannot be charged under it if you have ANY license to carry
>(although the police can then revoke your license).  Despite this, the
>judge ignored the law and convicted the man.  Also, they did not return


	Why didn't he ask for a jury trial?

JD
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: withrow@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Jim Withrow)
Subject: Re: RE: Mail Order SKS
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center, Power Systems Facility
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:40:51 GMT

In article <9212161317.AA19944@mimsy.cs.UMD.EDU> C08926RC@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu (Rob) writes:
>From: C08926RC@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu (Rob)
>Subject: RE: Mail Order SKS
>Date: 16 Dec 92 14:35:11 GMT
>
>#I just heard something on the news about some kid (I use the term generically;
>#I don't know his age, but I think he's a college student) who supposedly
>#bought an SKS through the mail and used it to shoot up a bunch of people.
>#
>#HUH?  I thought you couldn't buy modern firearms through the mail?  Anybody
>#know anything about this?
>
>Yep - the initial news reports were wrong.  The student purchased the
>SKS from a nearby gun store earlier in the day.
>
>I would expect talk of extending the Brady bill to cover all guns now...
>
>The only firearms you have shipped directly to you are pre-1898 and/or
>black powder firearms....
>
>
>Rob
>


I heard that a grad student killed his advisor with a hammer because his 
advisor had him screwing around for a long time rewriting his thesus.  This 
caused him to go beyond the 5 year limit and not graduate.

Think of all those construction workers who carry their weapon displayed in 
their holster.  Should we "register" hammers now?

What about chain saws, should we register those?  Then we could keep track 
of the people who own both chain saws and hammers and target them for more 
observation!

What about pepole who own ...
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Gun Control generally (from Knee Jerks
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:04:12 GMT

priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk (Jason Price) writes:

>In article 1889@tnc.UUCP, m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:

>>Oh yes, Merrie Olde England, the country that had it's prime minister
>>beg us for weapons when the Germans were threatening to do to them
>>what they had already done to France.

>Do you have a serious point to make, or would you just like to hurl abuse??
>I don't think a discussion on the war record of the US is particularly 
>constructive here do you??

	On the contrary, it is not the US war *record* that is constructive,
but rather the implication that restricting arms and hence arms manufacture
is counter-productive when you happen to need arms in a very big way.

	Let's face it -- the US is a rather violent culture.  The UK is
less so, at least generally.  You tend to not manufacture arms and
restrict them to the people.  Tell me, how many Colt M1911's were shipped
to your country so you could outfit your officers with handguns in World
War II?  Care to guess how many came from private citizens?  Look in the
back page of the American Rifleman over the last few months for a reprint
of the plea from Britain during that time.  Look also at the plea of the
U.N. president with regards to Somolia.  Why, the USA has all those guns
and soldiers, let *HER* disarm the Sololi warlords!  Yeah, right.

	In the words of an old Fortune program, a failure to prepare on
your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.  Should the UK
want the USA to help defend her, or should the USA be asked to send
troops into Somolia and disarm her warring factions, in my opinon we
should get free and internationally recognized ownership of that
territory.  Send the Marines in?  Somolia is another territory.  With
the UK we might just be satisfied with selling off some of your USA
holdings, but don't be so sure.

	What?  This is unfair?  Alright, just send cash.  What is your
liberty worth?  It's worth whatever your liberator says is fair.  If
you disagree, watch him leave.  Now what is it worth?

	Liberty is worth lives, and I'm sure there are plenty of widows
around to tell you exactly what they think the defense of <country>
was worth to them in monetary terms.  How will you pay, or will you
take up the responsibility yourself?

	Whew!  Quite a rant!  I guess I'm just nervous over Somolia.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Shooting License
Date: 22 Dec 1992 17:33:05 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Dec22.213228.28491@hydra.acs.ttu.edu> mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey) writes:
>I think that it is time that the states require a shooting license.
>The following are some possible characteristics of such a license:
>
>1.  It would NOT be required to purchase or own a gun.
>2.  It WOULD be required to use a gun.
>3.  Obtaining this license would be similar to obtaining a driver's
>    license.
>4.  State training would be offered, as it is for driving a car.
>5.  Insurance would be required, as it is for driving a car.

Change this to "It WOULD be required to use a gun on public land" and
I have no problem.

Also require EVERYONE who uses guns to obtain one.  I think most
police officers who drive are required to have a drivers liscense so
police officers who carry guns should be required to have a shooters
liscense.

>
>Most states already require the safest gun users to have a license for
>the use of a gun in the safest of uses:  hunting with the hunter safety
>card.  Let's educate the idiots who use guns unsafely.

Huntin = safest of uses???  I don't think so.  I don't have any
statistics but from my own experience I know a couple people who have
been injured by guns while hunting.  I don't know anybody else who has
been shot.  I would think that target shooting is the safest gun use.

You say "Let's educate the idiots who use guns unsafely".  I'd be
willing to support this if there was a problem.  Gun accidents have
been declining for years and have always been pretty low compared
to other types of accidents.

Hunting liscenses are not for safety anyway.  They are for revenue and
to control how many animals are taken.  The only states that I've hunted
in did not require a hunting safety card except for kids.
-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Effectiveness of gun control
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:34:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.231727.20630@mdd.comm.mot.com>
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:

   This also ignores the actual rates in neighbouring cities, it
   only looks at changes in totals per month (it sounds like).
   Does Virginia Beach (is that the name?) has similar population,
   looser gun laws, and 1/7th the homicide rate. Virginia Beach is
   across a bridge from Washington DC.

   (Frank Ney, do I have my city names right?)

Virginia Beach is NOT across the bridge; it is a state away, about
two hundred miles.  Your description would apply to either Arlington
or Alexandria, which are "across a bridge" and which have rates
approximately as you describe.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:02:06 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Dec31.155850.232@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
> ...
>Sure I am, I just choose not to help criminals, and lacking the ability
>to discriminate between criminals and non-criminals I choose to do nothing.
>
>I agree the vast majority of people are decent, but I don't want to
>take any chances that I would be helping some evil person.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^
> ...

  Over and over in most (all?) real-life situations we can only
play the odds.  There are very few guarantees - just favorable
odds.  This is true in self-defense (Ob. t.p.g) and in charity.
What guarantee is there that my cash contribution to [worthy charity] 
won't get dropped on the ground on the way to the bank and get picked
up by an unworthy recipient?  I'm counting on the favorable odds
that [worthy charity] will use my money in a good cause.

  Since I too agree that the vast majority of people are decent,
I consider that the odds of an organ donation being in good cause
are sufficiently high that I chose to sign a Uniform Donor Act
card.  The possibility that I will help an "evil person" exists,
but doesn't deter me from the better odds of helping a decent person.

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Effectiveness of gun control
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:29:40 GMT

[Summary of NEJM "study" deleted]

Isn't this the "study" that has been completely discredited here before?

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Downside to FFL?
Organization: BNR Inc. RTP, NC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:22:57 GMT

 William, I didn't get chance to look it up yet, But i think the key point
is that the location of my business and personal collections are the same.
The law says that I can have as many bound books as I want, so just to be on 
the safe side I record my personal collection in a seperate bound book. If 
I do get inspected I want to be as compliant as possible. I have firearms purchased 
before I obtained my FFL and I don't want there to be any question about them.
 I have heard from other people that the inspectors in this state are very reasonable
and I don't want to give them any reason to suspect that I'm fudging paperwork.  
 
	 
	Myron Petro
	NRA, USPSA
        DVC y'all
	**************************************************************************
	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the 
	 Second Amendment.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Lawrence Mass.
Date: 23 Dec 1992 21:09:23 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <105573@bu.edu>, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

It appalls me that you can say in one breath:

> Still, being more Anarchist/Libertarian minded, goverment controls 
> of any kind are diststaful to me.

...and then in the next breath:

> Consider what the Police in Lawrence Mass are doing now:
> In a for 4 block area known for drug dealing and prostitution
> they have "sealed off" the area. Residents are given "passes".
> There are checkpoints where the police will ask to your
> license and registartion, they give you a card explaining why
> you were stopped and they record your licence plate number.

> It seems to be working. Streets where children dared not play
> or old people dare not venture are now safe.

If you don't think that creating a four-block police state is not 
"government controls," just what the hell do you think it is?

Go back and reconcile your actual philosophy with your apparently
hastily-chosen self-label.
-- 

cdt@rocket.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: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Posting Email Without Permission Is Unacceptable (Was: The Ninth Not Dead Yet)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Dec22132938@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1h8bchINNhnd@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:33:34 GMT

<In article <1h8bchINNhnd@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
<   In article <ATAYLOR.92Dec22132938@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<   > <In article <1go0h3INN816@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
<   > 
<   > <   Last week, there was a discussion about whether it was reasonable
<   > <   for the Supreme Court to establish new civil rights out of whole
<   > <   cloth.  I argued that the process was underwritten by the Ninth, but
<   > <   someone else argued that the Court considered the Ninth dead, and
<   > <   went through some convoluted "emanation of a penumbra" argument to
<   > <   get to the same place.
<   > 
<   > 	Not quite; it was pointed out to you that if you endorse
<   > 	Roe v. Wade as a "good" SC decision, you are endorsing
<   > 	the concept that the Constitution is whatever 5 Justices
<   > 	say it is on any given day.

<   Ah, I remember the discussion now.  It was not here -- it was in e-mail.
<   Since none of the e-mail was particularly personal, I hope you have no
<   objection to me excerpting some of it.

	Yes, I do most strongly object, on the grounds that you did
	not ask prior to posting it.

	Please cancel the posting immediately. 

	I shall discuss the issue of the 9th in a separate posting.

	I normally would take it to email, but Tavares obviously
	would just post any email I send to him anyway, so....









Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns