HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Time-Warner
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:01:30 GMT

In article <lk48gfINN5it@news.bbn.com>, gonzalez@bbn.com (Jim Gonzalez) writes:
|> I don't think Time-Warner has changed its tune, as some here have suggested.
|> It's been reported on the internet mailing last that the latest Batman, 
|> produced by Time-Warner's DC comics, has a story including Virginia gun
|> runners and "assault weapons".  It was today reported that the Virginia 
|> governor is distributing it to legislators, in support of his latest 
|> gun control proposals.

If we've sunk to the point where our legislators must be educated by comic book,
perhaps it is time for revolution.

"Dulce et decorum est, pro patri mori."

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:17:43 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer/ESD/OSBU/SW Dev/App & Tool Dev

In article <1992Dec20.210743.26613@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
>
>>Could this happen?
>>  A rash of cop-killing is occuring when the cop stops a car for speeding.
>>  The driver rolls down the window and starts firing at the officer as he
>>  approaches. The officer dies.  There was no reason for the officer to think
>>  the speeder would be a threat, so his gun wasn't drawn.  This event happens
>>  a lot, over 10 cops a day are killed in the US every day this way. So the
>>  Weclome to the police state.
>...
>     Lets see, that would be over 3,560 police killed each year in this way  
>     alone. Do you have a source for this claim?
>     We all are aware of the dangers of the police business. This thread was
>     discussing the abuse of power in law-enforcement though, different topic.
>...

It's just a possible scenario.  There is nothing I have to prove because I
made it up.  Can it happen?  Sure.  Now let me see here.  I was talking about
important subjects like freedom, police state and the like, and you whip out
an article in response which attacks me because you noticed that the thread 
changed course slightly.  But you didn't notice that I started off that
scenario with "Could this happen?"  What was your point in doing this?  I
know what my point was:  I wanted people to stop letting the police get
as much as they want because we as a people will suffer for it.
[thread-change ahead...]  We all know the police have a tough job.  They are
not alone.  They are not the only people who place their lives at risk.  
If I work in a bad area of town and need to carry a gun -- tough.  I will not
get a CCW because the local police chief will not issue them to anyone.  My
life would be at risk, but that's too bad because I'm just a "citizen".  I
guess a citizen's life is less valuable than a cop's. Doesn't that bother
you even a little bit?  It sure bothers me.  So what am I trying to say?
I guess I'm just upset that I'm not allowed to protect my life as well as a
cop can protect his.  Seems unfair.  My body is no differnt than his.  A
bullet will stop me just as well as it will him.

In addition to all that, the trend is that the police will gain more power
and the citizens will lose theirs (guns will be banned for example).  I
would be willing to bet real money that there are quite a few people out
there who feel this is proper and just.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Shooting License
Date: 23 Dec 1992 00:53:20 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.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.

What does "using" a gun mean?  Carrying it?  Firing it on your own 
property?  Firing it at a private range?  Firing it in the town square?

> 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.

Training is already available from the NRA.  That's where your state and
local police get their training -- why should YOU settle for anything 
less?  Or were you just proposing it be free?  (Driver training isn't.)

> 5.  Insurance would be required, as it is for driving a car.
> 
> 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.

Reality check.

There are approximately:

    70,000,000 firearm owners in the US, and growing;
       581,000 crimes committed annually with handguns alone;
        23,000 purposeful gun homicides annually;
         1,400 accidents annually involving guns of all types,
               and decreasing steadily for the past 50 years.

Note that between 1,000 and 1,200 of those 1,400 accidents were with long
guns.  Most of them are attributable to your "educated, safest of users" -- 
hunters.  That doesn't square with your claim; I suggest you reassess it.

Note also that your proposal would involve only the first and last 
amounts, leaving the rest unaffected.  I suggest you are proposing a
complicated, expensive battle with the law of diminishing returns.

I speak as someone from a state where licenses are already the law,
and in which the process has inevitably evolved into something highly 
restrictive and routinely abused.
-- 

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...
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Here's the problem
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:44:35 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard) writes:

>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

  Ever heard the term "pursuit of happiness" ?            
  The point is thus: The "War on Drugs" sucks. Its done more harm to our
  civil rights than anything in history I can remember. Over 70% of all
  "drug arrests" are for marijuana. A "drug" that in over 50 years of intense
   studying has never been proven to be even as harmful as alcohol (which
   we glorify and endorse). The cost of this drug-war is BILLIONS of dollars.
  Has it been effective? Is it working? I think not.            
  I think "de-criminalization" is the key, not legalization. Stop filling
  our prisons with people whos only crime was to smoke a joint or snort a
  powder, and start keeping violent criminals for longer periods.      
  One note: before any of you "drug experts" inform me about the other
  "vast evils" that casual drug-users cause, spare me. I don't buy the bit
  about them being responsible for violence and for "ruining our youth".
  The problem is much deeper than that.
  As for how this relates to the firearms: Think about the resources in
  law-enforcement that would be available for violent crime if they didn't
  waste their time busting otherwise law-abiding people for drug crimes.
  Think about the reduction in crime caused by the devaluation of drugs.
  Addicts recieving treatment from a clinic, wouldn't need to rob/steal/kill
  to support their habbits. The mob would lose big proffits from drug sales.
  Of course, the government would lose lots o money too. No more farms to
  seize and sell because they found an evil <gasp> pot plant on it!
  Bottom line: The prohibition on drugs benefits the criminal element more
  than it helps society. The same is true for gun prohibition.

>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
>______________________()/ ()______________________________________________
From: bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: re:Time Magazine
Date: 31 Dec 1992 12:13:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


I called in to a C-SPAN morning call-in about two years ago, 
when the guests included the Washington bureau chief of Time; I
asked him flat out if Time magazine had decided to switch its 
format to "advocacy journalism,"  and he replied, "YES." So 
there seems to be little doubt that Time's motives are at best
suspect; according to their Washington bureau chief, they have
NO interest in being a neutral "news" magazine; they are 
solely interested in advancing an agenda.
Don't believe me? Call Brian Lamb at Cspan; (he takes private
calls). He will probably remember the incident, because the
look he gave the Time fellow was classic, and the camera caught
it. It said volumes, in the "am I really hearing this?" vein.
-- 
bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Flashlight bans discussusions in Detriot  (and you wants guns?)
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:58:06 GMT

In article <22960@drutx.ATT.COM> dfh@dwroll.att.com writes:
>>>The trial of four police officers who beat motorist Malice Green
>>>to death with MAG-LITE-type flashlights is going on in Detroit right
>>>now.  There has been some discussion of regulating such flashlights here.
>
>Has anyone heard of a case where someone was beaten with a MAG-LITE
>wielded by anyone *other* than a police officer?  Or are we just
>talking about regulating these things amongst the police force? (right!)
>
>Dave Haertig
>haertig@att.com

A local police detective (Natick, MA) was recently convicted of felonious
assault for utilizine his flashlight against the cranium of someone he had
an off duty traffic altercation with.  (Actually, he was convicted twice -
one by a judge, and once by a jury under the MA de-novo system in which
a defendant in a district court judge trial has an automatic right to a
second chance with a jury).  He also got a $1300 fine, one year suspended 
sentence, revocation of his carry permit and just blew an 18 year PD career.

A friend of mine was in a traffic altercation a few months ago, and the other
driver made "pull over" motions whilst waving a flashlight.  This friend
of mine generally has a temper, but resisted the temptation to pull over when
he noticed the "police officer's only traffic violation immunity decal" on 
the other vehicle's rear window.

One does wonder how many people are convicted of various crimes in such
altercations when there is not either a pattern of behaviour on the part 
of the agressing officer or wittnesses.  Such incidents have the tendancy
to undermine the credibility of the more typical police officer who considers 
his/her job a public trust rather than a position of special privilige and
authority.

                                        rob b.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:43:42 GMT

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current laws
>that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many parents are
>concerned that it has become fashionable for junior high students to
>carry concealed weapons.

	Nonsense.  In AZ it illegal for _adults_ to carry concealed
weapons.   Either you got the state wrong or the whole story is 
simply wrong.   

>What percentage of California residents over 18 carry legally licensed
>handguns?  You're speculating.

	Close to zero.  You almost have to be a cop in that state, 
if I understand correctly.



JD
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: The Knee Jerks in MA
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:50:51 GMT

In article <MERRITT.92Dec21094400@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>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.

Lots of things move faster than people and many of them are quite
effective weapons.  (Consider both autos and fire.)  Some kill without
moving at all.  (Consider poison.)  Note that a knife-wielder doesn't
have to let you see his knife and can arrange things so that you can't
run away.

In other word's, Merritt's "analysis" leaves out a lot of important
details.

>Armed camp society or reduction of availability. Take your pick.

Note the assumption that reduction of availability will affect
the right people.  Considering that it hasn't anywhere else ....

There are measures that affect crime, so why push for gun control?

>The current situation is unacceptable.

In many ways, it is.  So, why move further in a direction that doesn't
work?  Why the emphasis on failed measures?

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (J Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgiveness
Date: 30 Dec 1992 09:44:34 -0600
Organization: Dept of Comp Science, Middle Tenn State Univ, Murfreesboro, TN
NNTP-Posting-Host: knuth.mtsu.edu
Keywords: TIME, pleading

In <viking.725705367@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>	I recieved a phone call this evening.  It was a telemarketing
>ploy from Time, Inc.  They wanted me to renew my subscription, since
>I was a "preferred customer" and all that rot.  I told the guy that I
>was not interested in Time Magazine until they reversed their anti-
>Second Amendment policy and reported the news alone instead of
>manufacturing it.  I figured I could hang up in about two seconds.

>	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.

>	The offer was for 40 weeks at $0.60/issue, cancel at any time,
>and please try Time again and see if it hasn't responded to my concerns.

>	I gave in.  As a subscriber, I hold much more influence than I

I say, hang 'em high until the rope rots!

-- 
John Wallace   ||   INTERNET: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu
> > We have just the government that we deserve < <      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: For gun control? No not really.
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:24:18 GMT

In article <MERRITT.92Dec22092527@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

>I am certainly considering it. What type of gun should I buy?

That's a personal decision based on a myriad of factors.  Do you just
want a gun you can leave in a drawer and not think about?  Then a
revolver may be for you.  Do you want to carry it?  As a primary
weapon, or as a deep concealment backup?  Will you be practicing a lot
with it or a little?  Are you a large person or small?  Big or small
hands?  There are hundreds of types of handguns out there, and many of
them are specialized to suit a few needs very well, and some are good
for general purpose, and some are very specialized.  Kind of like
buying a car.
>
>I believe that the proability of being shot is too high. There must
>be an environmental change;
>
>1) restrict gun availability
>
>2) restrict ammunition availabilty
>
>3) allow people to create communities where the *can* control
>   guns and their use.
>
>I don't intend to shock anyone. If the creation of autonomous
>Anarcho-Capitalist zones shocks you, sorry. Jail me? Because
>I'm niether a Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal?
>I am a Anarcho-Capitalist that believes Social Engineering is
>possible. Or is my crime that I find the present proabilities
>of being murdered with a gun unacceptably high. Your stance is
>to compel me to gamble with my life. I but no such impositions
>on you. Infact all I ask is to join with others who think as
>I do and create a sane and safe enviromnet.
>

You are welcome to go an live in any type of enclave you want.  What
you have come across as doing, and what the anti gun crown *is trying*
to do is regulate *all* of us.  This isn't a situation where I'm
simply a visitor here, I live here too, and according to the supreme
laws of our land, my right to defend myself exceeds your right to be
free from fear that I might be armed.  

You mention creating a "zone".  Fine, but you may find that those who
*already* live where you want your zone may have different ideas about
your social engineering, and may not want to move.

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Gun Control generally (from Knee Jerks
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:44:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.154609.19823@aston.ac.uk> priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk (Jason Price) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!pipex!warwick!sunserver1.aston.ac.uk!sparcgx!priceje
>From: priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk (Jason Price)
>Subject: Re: Gun Control generally (from Knee Jerks
>Message-ID: <1992Dec22.154609.19823@aston.ac.uk>
>Sender: usenet@aston.ac.uk (Usenet administrator)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: sparcgx
>Reply-To: priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk
>Organization: Aston University (Comp Sci)
>References: <1889@tnc.UUCP>
>Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:46:09 GMT
>Lines: 35
>In article 1889@tnc.UUCP, m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
>>
>>Concerning 'Rational' Gun Control in England:
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Seems to me that the lesson failed to take hold yet again.
>>
>>Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
>>Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
>>Send e-mail for an application and more information
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
>>individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
>>subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
>>in their purpose."
>>        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
>>-- 
>>The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
>>703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
>
>
>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??
>
>Jason.
>
Of course not.  We yanks are rude, arrogant, annoying, and have no business 
whatsoever on your side of the Atlantic.  The whole pack of us should pack 
up and get back to the US where we belong.

Noel.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Lawrence Mass.
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:21:02 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <105573@bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!olivea!bu.edu!macro.bu.edu!merritt
>From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Lawrence Mass.
>Message-ID: <105573@bu.edu>
>Date: 23 Dec 92 16:16:16 GMT
>Sender: news@bu.edu
>Organization: Boston University Physics Department
>Lines: 43
>
>I must admit that the anti-gun control people have pointed out 
>flaws that I had not considered with restriction of availabilty
>of firearms and ammunition. I do however feel that mail order
>ammo is ridiculous.
>
>Guns are not the only weapons that kill. 2 men have been killed
>in the greater Boston area in the past month in traffic 
>disputes where someone pulled a knife. 6 people have been
>killed with guns in ambush style attacks with guns.
>No guns are not the only weapons out there, but they
>are by far the weapon of choice with criminals.
>
>Still,being more Anarchist/Libertarian minded, goverment controls 
>of any kind are diststaful to me.
>
>So that leaves me with the Anarcho-Capitalist Enclave.
>A place where you can lower probabilities of crime.
>
>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.
>The first effect is on Suburbanites who come into the 
>city to buy drugs or sex. Not activities you want veiwed
>in the harsh light of day. The second is that the high visibilty
>of the police has also reduced the number of people loitering
>(of which might be drug dealers and prostitutes).
>It seems to be working. Streets where children dared not play
>or old people dare not venture are now safe.
>
>It may not last:
>The ACLU is taking legal action against the Lawrence Police.
>
That is because what the Lawrence Police are doing is unconstitutional and 
wrong.  My grandfather did not take a bullet in '44 so that I would 
surrender my papers at some checkpoint because some bozo in a uniform said 
so.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=