HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:24:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <1992Nov6.041425.24217@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>Guns are a lot different from knives.  I can sit a block away with
>a knife and be considered a mild threat - but a gun makes me a 
>major threat.  I've had this argument before  "oh then let's ban
>steak knives" - tell that to the people in Killeen.  If that guy
>had a steak knife 90% of his victims might be alive.  Guns are
>a very different matter.

Ahem. The guy in Killeen had a Glock. This is a relatively short-barrelled
pistol.  Like most pistols, the range at which you can actually hit anything
is about 10 feet, good knife range. Beyond that, only the most amazing amount
of luck, practice and a much better pistol than a Glock will allow you to hit
the side of a barn. TV shows far too many cops picking perp's off from
a block away with a snubby revolver, try it yourself some time.
As most police officers learn, even an arthritic old woman can cross 10 feet
and put a knife in your gut before you can draw a pistol. Knives can
be in the end more deadly since people often don't take them as seriously.

The guy also had had his driver's license taken away earlier. This didn't
seem to prevent him from driving his pickup truck through the front of the
restaurant. How can I make this clear? Nut cases like the guy in Killeen
don't care about your silly bans or regulations, and they will *not* stop
them. At least take the time to find out the facts of the matter before
trying to use Hennard as a poster child for the evil-gun-disease. Seems
like there was a copy of a fairly complete account posted a while back,
perhaps someone will repost?

I might also point out that at least one young lady in the restaurant
in Killeen had left her pistol in the car since Texas law doesn't
allow concealed carry by citizens for *any* reason. Her parents are
both dead because of this she claims, and she is campaigning to change
Texas law so citizens can get carry permits. If she had had her gun,
it might have ended much quicker also.

-- 
The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM>
Subject: Crimestrike (was Re: NBC, CBS news reports)
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, 11 Nov 1992 15:50:08 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.

sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens) writes:
>vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
>>Also, CBS is at it again with a special on Kids with Guns.  They had some
>>bozo from Harvard saying: "We need to remove the guns from the communities".
>>Not "we need to get the guns from the kids", but instead his cure is to get
>>rid of all the guns.  They had to use the phrase "Drugs & Guns" at least 5
>>time.  Got to create that relationship in the viewers mind over and over
>>again.  
>
>	Of course, they also never mention the fact that its illegal
>for these kids to own a pistol, right?

    There was a shooting spree in Richardson (Dallas suburb) this past 
    weekend in which a hich school student was killed and several other 
    people were wounded. The student's father was quoted in the paper
    as saying that the violence points up the need for some kind of gun
    control. "One thing that sticks out has been that handguns aren't
    necessary in our society," he said. "I would really like to see the
    NRA take a reasonable position and help politicians find a solution to
    this problem." Quotes from the Dallas Morning News, 11/9/92, p14A.

    One truly ironic thing about this statement is that the boy was killed
    with a shotgun. Another is that one of the accused killers was given
    10 years deferred adjudication for an October 1991 carjacking conviction.
    He was in possesison of a gun during the robbery. After the conviction,
    he was caught with a .380 during a routine traffic stop, yet the guy
    was still on the street. 

    Maybe the Morning Snooze will see fit to print my pro-Crimestrike letter
    this time. Maybe I should get my wife to write it...

-- 
--  Kevin Langston  --  langston@convex.com  --  langston@frontier.lonestar.org
--  "When the huffing and puffing starts, it really does matter what your 
--  house is made of." Charles Osgood
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:05:45 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

>He was stating a hypothetical scenario.  Yes, he was stating it in the
>present tense, which confused you.  His point was, "Say half the customers
>had been armed -- then Hennard would have walked in with a tommy gun!"

Then even had this person been correct and  had Hennard showed up with a full 
auto, the result would have been little different.  You folks who haven't
shot automatic weapons seem to think that each bullet coming out has
some sort of guidance system.  You people have to stop getting all your
information from Hollywood and the Media.  In most cases, automatic
weapons fire is LESS accurate than semi auto one-shot-at-a-time
shooting.  Automatic weapons DO have their purpose, but they are usually
used for suppressive fire, that is, keep the enemies head down while you
seek some other advantage, such as seeking a better position or
protecting another part of your forces.

Probably the best demonstration I've seen involved shooting an m16 at
five targets.  (This was done precisely to demonstrate the advantage of
aimed fire.)  In full auto, the first target was hit a few times, the
second once or twice and none of the others were damaged.  The magazine
was empty in about 2.5 seconds.  In semi auto mode, the guy fired 5
shots, one solid hit on each target in the 'kill' zone.  Total time for
aimed fire, 1 second more than the automatic fire.  All the targets were
hit, and there were still 15 rounds left in the magazine.

Now, I think there is still a 100 round drum available for the tommy
gun.  Lets suppose Hennard crashed in with that piece.  Lets also
stipulate that five or six people were armed, one out of 25.  Hennard
presses the trigger.  Ten seconds later his drum is empty.  One of the
armed folks shoots him in eye with aimed fire from a .22 pistol.  End of
threat.  One round out of 4 hitting from automatic weapons fire in a
case like this would be generous.  You might have up to 15 people
WOUNDED and 5 to 10 dead.  All and all, a better picture than you had
with two plain old pistols and slow aimed fire over a 10 minute period.

Rick.

There are no dangerous weapons.  Only dangerous people.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Need Better NRA Ads NOW !
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:18:28 GMT
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."

In <1992Nov11.035832.4675@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:

>The best defense against invading cops is to get the laws changed so they
>don't do that any more.  Or, at least, make the penalties for getting the
>wrong house so severe they'll do their homework and check the address
>twenty times before going off half-cocked.

True.  Getting shot could be considered a severe penalty.

>                     However, pulling a gun in the face of overwhelming
>force isn't the answer.  That just makes you another "unfortunate
>statistic" (and gives fuel to the gun banners).  Forcing the police to do
>their homework and behave like good guys in the first place, so we don't
>have to wonder who just broke in our door, is what needs to be done.

Bringing to the fore the exact definition of "overwhelming force".  Most
no-knock raids on unsuspecting civilian homeowners probably qualify.  A
no-knock raid on a forewarned, well armed, well prepared homeowner is
not necessarily the black-and-white issue you make it out to be.

>Then, if the real goblins come to invade, we can concentrate on defensive
>tactics and strategies as we've been taught.

Sorry; total disagreement.  Not with your statement, but with your premise.
*Anyone* who breakes through my door without warning, wearing a mask *is*
a "real goblin".  "POLICE" painted across his back or not.  He is an attacker,
who has demonstrated a deadly threat and the means to carry it out, and
I am both sensible and justified in defending myself with any means at
my disposal, subject *only* to tactical considerations.


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Election results in Washington state
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:42:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

I just analyzed the election results in the Washington state
legislature, with an eye towards gun control issues.  If you have
no interest in statewide issues for Washington state, feel free to
press 'n' now.

I have separated the newly-elected legislators into three groups based
on their NRA rankings: the pro-gun people (with NRA 'A' or 'B' ratings),
the anti-gun people (NRA 'D' and 'F') and the unknowns (NRA 'C' or '?').

NOTE PLEASE that this rating system is somewhat deceptive!  Generally
speaking, the so-called 'unknown' group will be ANTI-GUN, since it
includes many people who declined to fill out the NRA questionaire, or
who support "reasonable controls".  The three groups might more properly
be labled "allies", "known opponents", and "probable opponents".

The state House (98 seats total) will be anti-gun again:

    pro-gun (A/B):  35
    unknown (C/?):  35
    anti-gun (D/F): 28

But in the Senate (49 seats total, only 26 up for election this year),
we appear to be holding our ground:

    pro-gun (A/B):  13
    unknown (C/?):   6
    anti-gun (D/F):  7

The new Governor, Mike Lowry, is an 'F'.

In the past two years, two gun control proposals passed the state House
and were blocked in the Senate.  It looks like the Senate is our only
hope for the next two years as well -- the House and the Governor will
pass gun control legislation if they can.

It is time to write to both of your state Representatives and (most
important!) your state Senator and let your opinions be known.  We are
on the defensive again, for the next two years -- and we must be a
VOCAL minority if we expect to protect our rights!

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: What gun bans might come about under Clinton?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 02:56:09 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuro.usc.edu

>Another thing is that you probably won't bring these illegal weapons to
>a shooting range to practice anymore, due to the fear of being caught.

I don't know about you, but around here most of us think this is what
God intended us to do when he invented the vast deserts of our western
states.  They make excellent places to 'check out' that new weapon or
any other kind of dangerous device not allowed to see polite company.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Science Fiction (Was: I HATE to vote for Bush! But...)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<2mzpxv_@dixie.com> <1992Oct26.223533.18500@jetsun.weitek.COM>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:45:41 GMT

<In article <1992Oct26.223533.18500@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
<   In article <2mzpxv_@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
<   >tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Gift) writes:
<   >
<   >THINK, people!  Hate bush all you want.  Start an impeachment drive
<   >after the election.  But my God, do anything except help Clinton.

<   I have a problem with that. I am female, and not interested in becoming
<   a Jew or a Christian, or subsidizing those religions.

<   I'm also a firearms person.

<   Bush is worse for me. Bush has me confused with a broodmare.

<   Sara Brady and friends at HCI are Republicans.
 
	Sarah Brady has endorsed Governor Clinton.

<  On the other hand, Democrat Tom Foley hasn't been seen supporting
<   any gun grabbing... 

	On what planet? 

	Foley endorsed the Brady Bill, now didn't he?

	Then there's the "Biden-Thurmond Anti Violent Crime
	Act of 1991" which Foley publicly endorsed....
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Reality and Home Made Firearms (Was: Registering "Assault Keys")
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:34:14 GMT
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

>>In article <1dpes0INN95e@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>
>>There is no possibility an Afghan tribesman is going to manufacture a gun.
>>(A sword, yes.  But it will take him a long time.)  

Various people have pointed out this is bogus, and I welcome the
correction.  For some strange reason I had assumed the Afghans, in their
gunmaking attempts, would have to start out with iron ore.  My apologies.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Summary: The Law and the RKBA
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:20:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov05.204219.19304@watson.ibm.com>, mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Nov5.184232.20993@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> 
> According to the law, you aren't a full fledged citizen until you reach
> 18 yrs of age - you are a minor.  You also can't enter into a contract or get
> married without parental consent.
> 

Odd how that changes.  I couldn't vote until I was 21, the same year
they decided that you could at 18.  So I think age is false argument.
The legislators could decide that you were a minor until 30 or as
early as 12.

> 
> A felony conviction disenfranchises you; i.e, restriction of rights, sometimes
> even to the point of imprisonment [restriction of freedom of movement]

Same thing.  Legislators made it up.  Still it's a restriction of
the RKBA - who decided which restrictions were okay and which weren't?
> 
> 
> Marc, you do have the right to free speech, but try shouting "FIRE" in a 
> crowded theatre and see what happens.  You'll get arrested, but it will not
> violate your right to free speech (you did get to say it!).  Rights imply
> duties; if you choose to exercize a right, you also expect to be punished if
> you abuse that right.  RKBA is no different.  

Still my same argument - if the RKBA is inviolable and above regulation
why do you lose it as a minor, or if you broke the law or for acting
weird and not for other reasons?

marc colten
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: NYC Lawsuit (Was: A thought on the comming gun bans)
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:27:36 GMT
	<1992Nov10.022829.10812@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<urbin.84.721407063@interlan.interlan.com>
	<1992Nov11.032809.23640@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Nov11.032809.23640@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
<In article <urbin.84.721407063@interlan.interlan.com> urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin) writes:
<>   Where the people in New York City compensated for the legally registered 
<>rifles that were declared illegal and then collected by the Police?

<Did anyone sue the city over this? 

	Of course. Several lawsuits were filed against NYC;
	maybe in a few years they will be heard in court.

<(I suspect the Supreme Court would
<insist on compensation, but that doesn't mean the local governments
<will automatically and uniformly act within the Constitution.)

	Local governments could always declare all "bad" guns
	to be drug paraphenalia.

	Voila! No compensation is required; just execute a
	"civil seizure".

	Note: Chicago has taken the lead on this with an
	"assault weapon" ban which calls for forfeiture of
	any motor vehicle "used to transport an assault
	weapon".

	Perhaps Crary can keep us all posted of the Supreme
	Court's position on civil forfeiture laws?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Re: Sign seen at Bush rally
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:03:12 GMT

In article <-285439965@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com> blanch@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (David Blanchard) writes:
>> here here, if that was the case then the government could refuse to allow
>> news to be broadcast on the TV or radio, since the framers certainly could
>> not have envisioned those inventions.  Ben F and Thomas J were much
>> smarter than that.  They were aware that history allows people to improve
>> technology.

>This is an interesting comment because we censored TV and radio precisely 
>because the gov't and their henchmen, the Supremes, contend that TV and
>radio don't fall under the 1st amendment. This allows the FCC to control
>content and operating licenses. 

This isn't the justification at all: The First Amendment applys just
as much to broadcasts as to printing presses. However, it is not
possible for _everyone_ to broadcast at the same time. There is a
need for regulation, to the exercise of one person's right from
interfering with another's right. Therefore, _some_ regulation of
broadcasts is required. This is exactly the same logic that requires
permits for public demonstrations. Further, only a few stations
can broadcast, so it is legal to give preference to those who best
serve the community's interests. (Similarly, a local government can
issue a parade permit to the Democratic Party instead of the
gay-pro-choice-poets-of-color, if they both want to have a parade
on the same day and at the same place.) The First Amendment is
not limited to the technology of 1791. (The government can not,
for example, deny a license on political grounds nor censor
broadcasts. They may only deny a license if the local public
has expressed a desire to hear someone else.) 

Similarly, the Second Amendment is not limited to muskets and
muzzel-loading rifles. However, like all rights, it is subject 
to reasonable restrictions. What constitutes a "reasonable"
restriction may change with technology. For example, due to 
low population density and more solidly built homes, firing
a pistol into the air probably wasn't a serious safety 
problem in 1791. Today, however, it does present a real risk. 
Therefore, the laws against discharging firearms within 
city limits, have become a reasonable restriction.

                                    Frank Crary
                                    CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Summary: Fantasy
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:07:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.171755.7409@Firewall.Nielsen.Com>, jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.170211.18927@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> >> 
> >> *Sigh*, if the folks in the restaurant had been able to carry
> >> concealed, then most probably the incident in Killeen would never
> >> have been on the national news in the first place. The unreasonable
> >> restriction of their RKBA kept them from defending themselves
> >> and others in this situation. This situation was more of
> >> a defeat for the HCI crowd than the RKBA crowd if you think about
> >> it a bit. I *know* there are a lot more folks in this forum who can/will
> >> probably jump on this assertion of yours with additional
> >> evidence/facts relating to that case. All of this has been rehashed
> >> here in tpg *numerous* times.
> >> 
> >
> >In the first place who said they couldn't "carry concealed" 
> 
> The Killeen TX laws.

So I've been told.

> 
> >So let's look at Killeen, again. There are no laws restricting the
> >right of honest, law-abiding citizens to buy weapons.  Or on anyone
> >else since it is in infringement of our rights to even ask us who
> >we are, or make us wait while they see if the id we have is real.
> >So maybe 50% of the people in the restaurant in Killeen were sitting
> >there comfortably with .38's on them.  And the guy walks in with
> >a semi-automatic rifle.  Do you agree that a nut would be more likely to
> >do just that - go for the big weapon.
> 
> A nut?  Sure.  Anybody with half a clue as to the difficulties of
> maneuvering a nice, big rifle around in a crowded, close-quarters
> combat situation? I doubt it.

So he uses a short, military style weapon.

> 
> > So what would the people do -
> >make it routine to carry semi-automatic's and then the guy walks in
> >with a fully automatic Uzi or Mac-10.
> 
> And gets shot dead by someone with a Derringer.
> 

Yeah, right.

marc colten

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx12.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: I want my Coke
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:02:50 GMT

In article <wr_q-mp@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
> From elsewhere on the net:
> 
> Here's what happened:  We relied on Associated Press for our national 
> numbers. AP said it would send out third-party numbers starting at 
> 10:30 p.m. They didn't. I have no idea why. 

According to Bernie Shaw on CNN this was because
many county clerks simply refused to count LP and other
minor party votes in time for reporting on Election night.

Robert K.