HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM>
Subject: Re:^42 The Car-Gun Analogy 
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Originator: langston@eugene.convex.com
Reply-To: langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:58:30 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.

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>If one is willing to live with having to get
>>a driver's license in order to drive a car, then I don't see why we
>>can't have some system of gun permits. 
[snip]
>A purist would also point out that permits are for competency
>problems, not intentional misuse problems.

    Last year, the Texas Legislature decided that we no longer need to
    tie up Department of Public Safety (highway patrol) Troopers for
    driver's license testing, and began putting civilian examiners
    in their place. One side effect of this changeover is the phase lag
    between troopers leaving and newly "certified" trainers taking their
    place. Several of the tx newsgroups, tx.politics and tx.general have
    had repeated discussions about the long lines at DPS offices as evidence
    of this lag. I think it's a safe bet that the lines for similar testing
    to "prove competency" before getting a gun permit would be far longer.

    I chatted with my state rep's assistant yesterday afternoon for about an
    hour. She said that the legislation allowing this change also allowed
    them to completely cease all drivers' tests and let the DPS issue a
    license based on written test scores. Because of the lines, and other
    problems with civilian testers at DPS offices, they are in the process
    of enacting this option.
    
    This seems to show that the DPS and Legislature agree that the driver's
    test is non-value-added. 

    For you pro-licensing types: Should we expect the rate of traffic
    fatalities to skyrocket as a result of this lack of testing? Why?

-- 
----      Kevin Langston               Convex Computer Corporation
------    WORK: langston@convex.com    Technical Operations
"Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous, you get knocked down
 by the traffic from both sides." - Margaret Thatcher
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Yanks
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:48:17 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <LAMBERT.92Jul22011929@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

[Annoying, forged message deleted.]

>>>>>Terminator, is that you?  This is NOT a very impressive forgery.

>>>> Are you accusing me of forgery?

>>>No, he's asking nicely.  Are you going to answer the question?

>> Wow!  That was a remarkable forgery job, whoever did this one!  Kudos.

>It's ridiculously easy to forge something like that.  (The forger got
>the message id wrong, so there:-)

>Since the original forgery came from MIT, you are the obvious suspect.
>I don't think that you did it, but your unwillingness to deny it is
>raising a few doubts in my mind.  Could we have a clear statement,
>please?

     C'mon, Rifleman.  You heard the man.  If you're innocent, you shoud be 
*much* louder and indignant.
 
     Of course, if you *are* guilty, then your protestations of innocence 
are totally worthless, because everyone knows that if someone's guilty they'
ll just deny it.
 
     Good lord, people.  It's not like somebody misspelled "potatoe" or 
anything.

>Tim

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: waynec@csr.UVic.CA (Wayne  Chapeskie)
Subject: Re: Firearm availablity and the canadian crime rate
Organization: University of Victoria
Date: 28 Jul 92 09:18:39 GMT

archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>In article <1992Jul24.044351.6180@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>>In article <1992Jul24.024121.23964@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>>Possible Partial Explanations:
>>>
>>>1. Canada is not as impoverished as Mexico.  There is
>>...
>>>
>>>2. Canada has less people per square kilometer than
>>...
>>>
>>>3. Various cultural reasons exist.  For one, Canada did
>>...

>>Are you saying that in the case of Canada, gun restrictions are not
>>primarily responsible for their low crime rate?

>>-- 
>>My opinions are my own.

>That is correct.  Canada also has a lower auto theft rate, a lower assult 
>rate, and a lower rape rate.  She is blessed with a more law-abiding, less 
>violent people.

In a sense this statement is true; however  it is not necessarily the
case that the average Canadian is less violent than the average
American.  Rates of homicide and violent crime are reasonably similar
for demographically similar groups in both countries, with the US
groups having perhaps a slightly higher rate.
In my experience,
as someone who has lived in both countries, the average middle class
American is not a great deal more violent than the average
middle class Canadian.

What Canada lacks, however, is that uniquely American phenomenon,
the inner city, predominantly black, underclass.  This segment of
American society is responsible for much of the violence in American
society; it simply does not exist in even the largest Canadian cities.
Various historical factors account for this:
In Canada there was never an agrarian economy dependent on slavery,
as existed in the American South.  There was no large black slave
population, no civil war, no long history of racial oppression,
no mass migration of blacks to the cities.
[Not that Canadians are blameless in the racial oppression department.
our native population has much higher rates of homicide and violent
crime than the rest of the population, but since they only make up less
than 2% of the population, as compared to the 12% black population in
the US, it doesn't affect the national crime rates that much.  It also
makes it easier for the "native problem" to be hidden away on reserves
where it doesn't affect the rest of the population.]

There are, of course, other historical differences between the two
countries which may continue to account for a small amount of the
difference in violence rates, but the aforementioned urban underclass is
the dominant factor.


Wayne Chapeskie		waynec@csr.UVic.CA
University of Victoria
Victoria, B.C.,  Canada
--
Wayne Chapeskie		waynec@csr.UVic.CA
University of Victoria
Victoria, B.C.,  Canada
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:29:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.015907.1251@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil
Ngai) writes:

|>In article <1992Jul24.002050.16717@dscomsf.desy.de>
|>hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>>|>	If gun laws make all the difference, why isn't Mexico 
|>>|>	safer than the U.S.?
|>>
|>>Because with guns freely circulating north of the border ther is
|>little
|>>chance of gun control laws working?
|>
|>Then please explain why Canada has much lower crime rates than the
|>US?
|>By your reasoning, all those bad US guns ought to be as available to
|>the Canadians as they are to the Mexicans.

The Canadians have a competent and well resourced police force to
enforce their gun control laws which have the support of their
population.


|>Also, do Switzerland's neighbors have problems with Swiss guns making
|>a run for the border too?

A Swiss serviceman is issued with a rifle which he has to keep in his
house. He is also issued with ammo. He is responsible for both. If he is
found to be a round of ammo short he is in trouble, if he opens the box
he is in trouble in fact.  If he looses his gun then all hell is going
to descend upon him and he is going to get posted to do guard duty on
top of Mont Blanc for a month or something.

Also an assault rifle is not exactly the ideal weapon for knocking off
grocery stores. They are big suckers, difficult to stick under your
jumper.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:09:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.210801.11139@ttinews.tti.com>, reid@metis.tti.com
(Reid Kneeland) writes:

|>Now our illustrious British commentator will explain to us why Northern
|>Ireland has a such a problem with armed violence, since it shares
|>England's tough gun laws.  (Don't they know that's illegal!?!?)

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.

Second they get their guns from such globo-shites as Muhamir Ghdaffi and
smuggle them in. Ghadaffi recently decided to reverse this support and
peached. Few independent comentators beleive this is unrelated to Bush
recently unloading a large quantity of munitions on Iraq, and being low
in the polls looks desperate to find an excuse to unload some more on
someone else.

Phill
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Docs versus riflemen
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:57:03 GMT
	<1992Jul17.105241.9490@ucc.su.OZ.AU> <1992Jul21.051052.18543@trl.oz.au>
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA

In article <1992Jul21.051052.18543@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU
(David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:

   Having been to both the US and Switzerland I must say that I feel
   much safer in Switzerland. Both populations (generally) are armed
   so it's not just the fact that guns exist in the hands of the
   population that makes the difference.

Bravo.  Well done.  Keep that thought.

   The Swiss are armed for the security of their free State and work
   together to train a good militia to maintain that community
   freedom. This is the way it was intended in the US through the 2nd
   amendment.

Good so far.

   But the 2nd got extended from a 'security of a free State' to the
   security of an individual (Don't tell me the individual IS the
   state, we'll agree to disagree). The RIGHT! of the individual to do
   what he wants and to use his firearm to back it up. If what the
   individual wants is out of line with the majority and the laws then
   he is called a 'criminal'.

It is not clear to me how you got to this last paragraph.  The greater
level of violence (including firearms violence) in the United States
seems to me a product of different cultural backgrounds and
governmental systems, not some distorted view of the Second Amendment.
I know of no one who believes the Second Amendment confers "The RIGHT!
of the individual to do what he wants and to use his firearm to back
it up."  Laws against illegal firearm USE are a separate issue from
gun control (as the term is usually used).  I know of no one on this
list off hand who would agree with your characterization above.

Mind you, given the rhetorical style of some frequent posters, I can
see how you might form this opinion.  However, please make some effort
to separate hyperbole from statement.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Call off the dogs. was Re:Waiting periods for guns and domestic violenc
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:10:36 GMT

<In article <1992Jul28.171713.57578@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:

<      In an article earlier today I said that I do not agree with
<   the NRA's lobbying for maintaining the legality of automatic
<   weapons. I disagree with the NRA doing this. I didn't say they
<   did it this year I just said the NRA lobbied to maintain the
<   legality of these weapons.
 
	This is an accurate statement, more or less. However,
	the suggestion that automatic weapons can be easily
	purchased was also made and is nonsense.

<     I suggested that the AK-47 was an automatic weapon. And 
<   since that article appeared I received five, count them five,
<   responses in two hours telling me I was wrong. I meant the AKS
<   assault "look-alike" rifle they said. Now I would like you to know that
<   there IS an automatic AK-47 and it is a perfectly good example
<   of an automatic weapon. So please stop telling me how I have been
<   manipulated by the popular media.
 
	And what about the replies taking you to task for
	your ignorance about automatic weapons licenses	
	in the U.S.?

<     And please don't assume someone doesn't know what they are
<   talking about until you do a little investigation. Thank You.
 
	Sorry, you've already displayed quite well that you
	don't know what you are talking about.

<     Finally, to the one poster that wants to know why I have
<   the right to say that noone needs an automatic weapon:
<      Because I have the right to an opinion and that's my opinion.

	Fine. However, your opinion disagrees with the opinion
	of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

<   Peace, but not without justice,
 
	Freedom.
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Docs versus riflemen
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:58:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.051052.18543@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>But the 2nd got extended from a 'security of a free State' to the security
>of an individual (Don't tell me the individual IS the state, we'll agree to
>disagree). The RIGHT! of the individual to do what he wants and to use his
>firearm to back it up.

The "RIGHT! of the right of an individual to do as he wants and to use
his firearm to back it up" is Jewell's strawman.

We're still waiting for Jewell to tell us what gun use/ownership
restrictions are consistent with his militia use interpretation.  He's
already admitted that it excludes registration (because that makes
guns unavailable for resisting govt) and restrictions on ownership and
possession by the law-abiding.

He keeps insisting that his interpretation is relevant to the gun
control discussion (as opposed to a military policy one), but the
details are lacking.

>If what the individual wants is out of line with the
>majority and the laws then he is called a 'criminal'. 

So?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: weapon identification
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:56:50 GMT

In article <Jul.28.10.47.24.1992.1348@kinks.rutgers.edu> 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.

I'm afraid you surmise incorrectly.

The Striker "Street Sweeper" is a short barreled shotgun with a 12
chambered cylinder, much like a revolver.  I believe it was featured in
the movie "The Dogs of War." It looks exotic and dangerous but, in
reality, is a pain in the anatomy to use.  Each chamber has to be
individually loaded and unloaded through a gate.  In the movie they made
it seem more deadly through the use of exotic ammunition -- which would
actually work in any shotgun.

They're made in South Africa and banned in California.

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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: Foreign Interest in the US RKBA (was ACLU & 2nd)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Date: 22 Jul 1992 11:57 EST  

djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes...
> ...
>What percentage of eligible people actually vote in US elections? 

I think somewhere between 50-60%

Here it is
>about 98%, 

I find that number extraordinary.  This figure is more typical in 'democracies'
where voting is enforced by the gov.
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Can the people overcome the army?
Summary: I do declare!
Date: 23 Jul 1992 05:25:01 GMT
Organization: Rice University, Houston, The Republic of Texas

In article <BrH6q4.1MA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
- In article <1992Jul16.051625.19101@ddsw1.mcs.com> zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh) writes:
- >	Granted, there hasn't been a military coup, but enemies of the
- >Consitution are right there sitting in the White House, Capitol Building and
- >Supreme Court. I don't see any of you trying to regain control of the nation.
- 
- All experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
- evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms
- to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurptions,
- pursuing invariably the object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
- despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government
- and provide new guards for their future security.

   We have appealed to their native justice and magnaminity, and we 
   have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow 
   these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections 
   and correspondence.  They too have been deaf to the voice of justice 
   and consanguinity.  We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, 
   which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest 
   of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "Don't dial 911;    
 kossack@rice.edu  |   Dial M1911A and let it ring seven times." 
  +1 713 240 2073  |         -- sybok@m37-332-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18355 soc.women:14346
From: dswartz@redondo.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:22:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering


Look folks, can we take it as a given that this guy doesn't know
anything about the AK-47 or any other auto vs semi-auto issue and
kill this thread?

-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: Ban the Killer of 300,000
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:18:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul16.034550.12716@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>
>Agreed, Now let's discuss what's a "good" reason.
>Is stopping someone from stealing your TV a good reason?

No, IMO it is not.  Using non-lethal means to attempt to prevent
a crime like this IS acceptable.

However, a very plausible scenario can be created
in which one's life or well-being is endangered by the
criminal in direct retaliation for attempting to stop
him/her from stealing your TV.  Once things have escalated
to that point, which can happen in a matter of milliseconds,
then shooting the criminal is justifiable, again IMO.

>Is stopping someone raping your wife?

If that is the only way I can be SURE of stopping that rape,
you betcha!  If there is only a .0001% chance that I would
not be able to stop it and/or survive long enough to try
again to stop it after trying other means of stopping the rape,
I would be crazy to risk it.

>Is stopping an intruder?

Depends.  Chances are good that your life and/or well being are
or soon will be in danger.

>What are "good" and "bad" reasons for shooting to kill?
>
>DJ...
>


                              Dave Schabel


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:59:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.175025.173@lrc.edu> blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:

>Man is inherently wicked and prone to sudden acts of random violence against 
>his neighbor...a puny wimp with a small dick feels macho when he has a steel
>rod that can spit fire and deal death in his hands.  It takes *more* guts to 
>love your neighbor than 2 pull the trigger and end his life in a splattering
>of blood and spongy grey matter. A smoking hole in a shattered skull is *no*
>way to solve diplomatic problems. Most of your gun-owners have no brains and
>therefore are incapable of settling their differences with another using (of
>all things!) civilized discussion. They'd rather blow the opposing fucker a-
>way and end the matter right then and their. They do love to play Rambo with
>their big guns. If only their brains were that size. Not to mention genital-
>reproductive organs. If we all discarded our guns & got rid of all our bombs
>and disposed of every stupid weapon we own we'd get along *much* better with 
>each other. Perhaps we'd even have peace, love & happiness around the world.

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

>So get rid of yours today.

>Peace!

    Peace.  Love.  Happiness.

    Love your fellow man and everything will be all right.

    Unless you happen to be the kind, elderly, local old lady who was
beaten, raped, and murdered recently.

    But I suppose there wasn't enough peace and love and happiness in her 
heart.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton