HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Help!  Mayday! Eeeek!  Call the militia!  AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! 
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:08:18 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul30173343@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

><In article <archer.222@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>   In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul29080532@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) wr<ites:


><   >       Question: which will open the average house door faster, 
><   >       a lock pick or a pipe wrench?

><   That depends on how quiet you want to be and how big the pipewrench is!  :)

>       The word "quiet" is not in the question.

>       The answer is: "For the average house door, a standard
>       pipe wrench will rip even a deadbolt out".

>       So add "pipe wrench" to the list of "burglar tools" 
>       that you are so intent on banning...

>       Or perhaps we could agree that "direct crime control" should
>       be more concerned with INDIVIDUALS who commit crime than
>       with inanimate objects?

Would everyone PLEASE quit pounding one me?  I'm one of the good guys, 
really.  I was just trying to come up with a definition of "direct" crime 
control.  I am a member of the NRA and have been for over a year.  I am a 
practicing libertarian and I have been since before there was a libertarian 
party.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: News media & politicians
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:29:04 GMT

In <56820001@hpscit.sc.hp.com> chrisw@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Chris Wiles) writes:


>	With all the media "disinformation" regarding guns
>and their functions, ie autos semi-autos etc. Couldn't the
>media concieve the idea that a double action revolver be
>construed as a semi-auto /automatic, considering that one
>pull of the trigger would equal one shot fired? I would like
>to get a 100 year old double action revolver and convence the
>media it is actually an assault weapon. 

	My Ruger Old Army black powder is an evil automatic weapon too,
under certain conditions.  See, there's no disconnector, and it's a
single-action revolver.  If I hog out the nipples that the percussion
caps fit on, the powder going off will blow the hammer back to the cocked
position.  If I don't let off the trigger, that's six shots real quick.

	I'm not doing it with _MY_ gun, but it has happened before.  I
wonder if the media would look at a black powder revolver as a assault
pistol?  Preferred weapon of drug dealers, you know...


<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Call off the dogs. was Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violenc
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:09:31 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.

dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.043505.13207@convex.com> tighe@convex.com writes:

>>As far as I know, the select-fire version of the AK-47, the AKM, or the
>>AK-74, has never been legally imported into the United States. A few have
>>been smuggled in, a few came in for evaluation by the US goverment. But as
>>far as I know none have been available legally to civilians.
>
>Shotgun News carries ads from machine gun dealers.  I know for a fact
>that full-auto AK-47s are available.  An old SGN I have lists them
>at about $2200.  The SGN is from last fall, so those are Fall 1991
>prices.

What I meant was AKs that were imported as full-auto. Those are rare for
two reasons, one of which I knew. The other reason, as "Morris the Cat"
pointed out in another article, was that they were banned from import in
1968 by GCA/68. Semis that have been converted to full-auto are the norm. I
didn't mean those. Sorry for the confusion.
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ban the Killer of 300,000
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:50:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Jul21.041125.16249@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>>Think about the differences between shoot to kill and shoot to stop
>>and why they're relevant.
>
>Agreed, but how many of the MILLIONS of gun owners in the US have the training
>to know the difference and the skill to stop without killing in a wide 
>variety of situations with any or all of their weapons. Not many I guess.
>
>DJ...

Bahahahahahahaha!!!! (Falls on floor and starts beating ground, face turns
red.) Hahahahahah!!!

Yeah, right DJ.  Like he was talking about trying to shoot the perp without
killing him.  Bahahahaha.  Shoot the perp's gun away and then make it
dance through the dirt like ol' Clint Eastwood in "High Planes Drifter", eh?
From: dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Stop
Summary: One who threatens my right to life, forfeits his own
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:02:12 GMT
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.


	If I am ever confronted with a situation where the life of my wife or child
	were threatened by someone, I would shoot them were ever I could see and as many times as it takes
        to remove the threat. If that requires my sticking the gun in their ear, shooting them in
        the back, whatever, so be it. The only important thing is that my family is safe. Even if I were sent away
        for x years, that would be better than one of mine dead. A person who threatens the life of an
        innocent has therby forfeited theirs and they damn well better be prepared to lose it. 

	P.S. Naturally the safety of the innocent is most important and may preclude the use of 
             deadly force at all.
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Don Thompson                        |   I may be opinionated, but at least
Comshare Inc. dont@execu.execu.com  |   my opinions are my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:53:49 GMT

In article <5054@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>Sorry, that's the wrong attitude.  If I were a gun banner, the solution
>would be obvious.  If no guns could be legally sold through these outlets,
>criminals couldn't buy them there.  Unfortunately, that's not the solution
>you want to hear.  If you don't propose a better solution, it's the one 
>you WILL hear.
>
>The theory posted here in the past has been, "Laws against guns don't
>work, and besides, most of them already duplicate existing laws that
>aren't being enforced."  I hear this particularly about people who
>purchase guns in another state.  "There's ALREADY a FEDERAL law against 
>that; what good is it to have TWO laws?"  
>
>But now people admit that the existing law is either not being enforced 
>or is unenforceable.  If the latter, then maybe another law IS the answer.
>(You wanted to hear THAT, didn't you.)  If the former, how should it
>be enforced better?

I'd say that there is no solution.  You cannot keep guns out of the
hands of criminals by passing laws, any more than you can keep drugs
out of the hands of users.  There will continue to be armed crime in
the US until the social conditions which breed crime disappear.  In the
meantime, the law-abiding must have the ability to defend themselves.
I certainly don't like this state of affairs, but I really don't see
how any solution based on outlawing guns could ever work in this
country.  When has the US government EVER successfully banned a
commodity for which there was a significant demand?  (Slavery doesn't
count; the slaves themselves were motivated.)

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Libertarianism
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:31:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.200032.24708@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:

>In article <archer.165@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <14natnINNjgt@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:
>>
>>
>>>In article <archer.157@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>>>>Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
>>>>>records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 
>>>>
>>>>No, they don't.  Anyone wanting a firearm for an illegal purpose is not 
>>>>going to purchase it through legal channels, nor sit our the waiting 
>>>>period.  Waiting periods are ONLY useful as a harassment tool for law-
>>>>abiding gun owners.
>>
>>>Funny, then, isn't it that this the exact same reasoning that I use to
>>>justify the legalization of drugs, but conservatives alwaysd think I'm
>>>an idiot?  Anyone wanting to buy drugs will get them right?
>>
>>Fortunately, you are talking to a libertarian, and I support the right of 
>>anyone who wants to take poision to turn thier brain to tapioca.  Just don't 
>>expect me to pay for his rehab or to support him once he screws himself up 
>>to the point that he can't work for a living.

>Of course the Libertarians haven't even thought to add up the possible
>expense to society in terms of crime, loss revenue, etc.  I support 
>the legallization of many but not all drugs.  There are some drugs known
>to promote violent episodes.  But, this is not what I wanted to continue
>on.  My main point is that very FEW cases are in such vacumes as the before
>poster (T. Archer) thinks.

Actually, the Libertarian Party has looked VERY closely at the possible 
results of their advocated positions.  In almost every case, the preiminence 
of the individual over the group was determined to be more important.  True, 
there are some drugs that promote violent episodes.  So?  If someone commits 
a violent act, he should be held accountable for it.  He chose to take the 
drug, did he not?

Nothing exists in a vaccum.

Followups to talk.politics.misc, please, we have completely departed from 
anything but the most tangential relationship to firearms.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: H.R. 2922
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:36:00 GMT

In <ATAYLOR.92Jul30150302@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

><In article <1992Jul25.223403.27105@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

><   The tax on 1000 rounds of 200 grain bullets would be nearly $21.50
><   for primary lead and nearly $10.75 on secondary lead.  Stock up now.

>	Just a thought; in addition to the usual folks, we should
>	be posting this in gun shops. I know a lot of shotgun 
>	shooters who are pretty apathetic about politics....but
>	most all of them reload.

>	Man, if THIS doesn't get them going, I don't know what will.

	Just a note: steel shot is supposed to be used in some areas,
especially when going after waterfowl.  It might not excite those
shotgunners too much.

	Guess who will be royally torqued?  Black powder shooters.  My
.45 shoots about a 230 grain buller, so I can imagine what that old
buckskinner's .74 rifle tosses out!  Geez!

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:45:20 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


>Because any time the exciting phallic
>signifier appears, even in the imagination of the gun fancier, his
>thinking processes are obscured,

Spoken like a true bigot.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:43:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.024121.23964@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>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.
>
>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.
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Rights Advocates
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:53:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


In <Bs2FqL.6uJ@acsu.buffalo.edu> Danger states:

[FBI visitations]

|Well, I'm sure they won't come visiting.  The howizter is enough to
|knock out a helicopter 

I presume you are using one of them "flechette" loads when firing
on a helo; now that would cause some damage...

|and the car is rigged with a couple of shotguns
|behind the wheel-wells.

I hope you use slugs, 'cause shot doesn't seem to have much penetrating
capability of sheet metal of autos...

|I thought that making my own bullets at home would be great and I came
|across a crate of steel ball bearings.  Coat the larger ones with lead
|and PRESTO! instant armor piercing for most vests from a shotgun.

Have you tested this? I am curious as to whether such a shape could
penetrate soft-body armor. Coating the ball bearing I assume would
make it no more armor piercing than a standard lead slug. Figure it
this way: a flack jacket can stop jagged pieces of metal from 
nearby explosions, but may or may not stop a smallarm round. This
definitely calls for some testing before trusting your life to
it in a firefight.

Some things you could try: I've read that Zinc-cast bullets of the
shape of "Arcane" i.e. a conical point in .45ACP are capable of
penetrating soft-body armor. American Rifleman many years took the
9mm sintered-iron bullets from 1950s era Czech surplus ammo, loaded
them into a .380 Auto case, and found that these rounds would penetrate
soft-body armor. In these cases, light weight combines with bullet
shape, or bullet shape combined with hard materials, offer AP capability
to a user.

I would encourage experimentation and reporting of results to ascertain
the feasibility of field-expedient AP firearms ammo.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: "Direct" methods of crime control
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 08:45:28 GMT

dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (The Conservative) writes:

>><   >       Question: which will open the average house door faster, 
>><   >       a lock pick or a pipe wrench?

>  Who cares?? Do what Sen. (NY) Tony Imperiali says,
> "If a guy come in your house, shoot his ass dead, put a knife in his
>hand and then call the police!!!"
	
	In real life, that's not smart.  It will be an obvious fraud 
to the forensic investigators, and then you will have some real
explaining to do.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lucifer@world.std.com (Kevin S Green)
Subject: Re: <request> "Brady Bill" full text source
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:20:26 GMT

Thanks to the following for responding to my request. I
now have the full text of the "Brady Bill".

russo@amazon.chem.columbia.edu
bb063@clevland.Freenet.edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com (C.D. Tavares)
lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)

-- 
Kevin S. Green / lucifer@world.std.com / {xylogics;uunet}!world!lucifer
               /America Online: Gargoth
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:11:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.050335.6275@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1493@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:

>This sounds like the reasoning of Rev. Brockway, of the United
>Methodist Church (May, 1977 _ENGAGE-SOCIAL ACTION FORUM_), who thinks
>that if an attacker is only going to rape (yes, I know your scenarios
>are not about rape but I think the reasoning has similarities), then it
>is the victim's duty to submit rather than do anything that might
>imperil her rapist's life.

I have one word to say in response to this.

AIDS.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
From: ronp@dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Re: Call off the dogs. was Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violenc
Organization: DAZIX / An Intergraph Company
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:14:23 GMT

In article <3599@execu.execu.com> dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson) writes:
>
>When a person makes statements such as this, you can usually attribute it to
>ignorance. When they stand and defend it, to what can that be attributed?

Hmm ... Waging a battle of wits without a weapon?    :-)





************************************************************
*Ron Phillips                        ronp@dazixca.ingr.com *
*Senior Customer Engineer                                  *
*DAZIX / An Intergraph Company                             *
*381 East Evelyn Avenue              VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
*Mountain View, CA 94041             FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Call off the dogs. was Re:Waiting periods for guns and domestic violenc
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:12:30 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.

There has been only ONE misuse of a legally registered fully
automatic gun since 1934, and that by a police officer.
Since these guns are NOT being used in crime or for illegal
activity, how can you oppose the NRA when it seeks to prevent
the government from stopping new registrations?  Do you
believe that certain decisions, even if they harm no one,
should not be made by individuals, but only by governments?
If you do, you are a lost cause.

There is NO cogent reason to prevent the new machine guns
from being registered.  The 1986 ban should be thrown out.
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:56:45 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


>The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791, dimwit.  Back to school.

Now, now, Rifleman.  It's obvious that this person was not accepted to
Harvard on the basis of intelligence.  Money and Influence are the
common denominators there.

Considering the responses and this person's responses to those
responses, this person (gender as yet undetermined) is attending what
my school listed as ENG 99, aka Bonehead English, that course given to
those who managed to graduate from high school as functional
illiterates.

The worst part is that this person will graduate with a JD or LLB and
become part of the precipitate rather than the solution (that's a
chemistry joke for the 'humor impaired').

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  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
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rigg@atlantis.sps.mot.com (Dana Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: AARP Stance on Gun Control
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:35:56 GMT
Reply-To: rigg@atlantis.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola, Inc.


Those of you who are members of, or know members of the American Association
of Retired Persons (AARP) may be interested to here what a writer to the
editor of the American Rifleman (a magazine published by the NRA) had to say:

"... the AARP has joined the anti-gun brigade, adopting a policy calling on the
federal government to increase controls on the availability of 'handguns and
semi-automatic and automatic weapons.'"

It goes on:

"After adopting the policy, they cooked up a survey purportedly showing the
members approved it."

My mother has been a member of AARP for several years, and a member of the NRA
for much longer.  She was surprised to hear about this, especially considering
that the AARP **NEVER** sent her a survey or asked her for an opinion on the 
issue.

Members of the AARP may wish to write to the organizations president at:

Robert Maxwell, president AARP
1090 K St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20049


Regards,

Dana Rigg
rigg@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com