HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: for your reading enjoyment pt2
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:10:14 GMT

In article <70548@apple.Apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
>Bring back the "Wild West", I would rather be free than be a slave of society.

You'd probably be safer too, if the experience in the mining camps (which
were supposedly the most violent "wild west" communities) are any guide.

>In article <36518@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> msn@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Mike 'HK G3ZF Full-Auto' Newsome) writes:
>>For ya'lls reading pleasure...
>>
>>	ALLIGATOR Tue. 07-21-92 page 4.
>>
>>	TAMPA - Police say they're worried about armed showdowns
>>	becoming too common in once quiet Tampa as robbery victims
>>	begin to retaliate.  Five times in less than three weeks
>>	someone has drawn a gun and fired at an accoused bandit.
>>	So far, one suspect has been killed and two wounded.  "We
>>	absolutely must caution our citizens to think about their
>>	actions," said Tampa Deputy Police Chief Curtis Lane. "What
>>	we can't afford is to get caught up in a Wild West mentality."

I wonder if the good chief knows of the irony, and accuracy, in his
statement.  If "we" means "we police", then he's right.  Police were
not significantly worse then than they are now, but the rest of us had
a far more accurate image of them.  We saw them as thugs who might
occasionally do something right, but were not to be trusted with
anything important.  Modern police can't afford that image.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: "Direct" methods of crime control
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 17:01:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.135005.834@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
(The Conservative) writes:
>>>  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.
>
>  No thats not the main point. The main point, or thrust, was that we should
>and do have a right to protect our property, whether it be .38 specials
>or 38" Willie Mays to the head!

An unarmed burglar can be frightened away easily, if you point your gun
at him.  That's what I would do, if the burglar was clearly unarmed.

What you suggest is crimanal and it makes responsible gun owners look
bad.

   don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know that my true friend will appear after my death, and that my
sweetheart died before I was born"
      Tanaka Katsumi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:29:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:
>
>   The NRA seeks to keep the AK-47 assault rifle legal to the public.
>That is enough for me to know they are misguided. Noone needs an
>automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense.

Wrong; the NRA gave up on fully automatic firearms in 1986.
And who are you to say a fully automatic firearms is not suitable for
private ownership ?  Is it wise to give the government such an advantage
over the people that it is next to impossible to fight back effectively
against an oppressive government ?

The current controversy is over the semi-automatic look-alikes of
fully-automatic firearms.  These firearms are no different functionally
than so-called "sporting" semi-automatic firearms.  They just look
nasty.  In fact, military style firearms are generally less lethal
than hunting fireams.

Game regulations prohibit puny military rounds on large game because
they are not lethal enough to reliable kill the animal.  And in fact,
military ammo generally is designed to wound not kill.

I suggest you read the file:

archive.cis.ohio-state.edu:/pub/firearms/politics/rkba/fl-aw-part2

to learn more about the "awesome firepower" of the AK-47.

>Gang members however find it an excellent weapon for turf wars.

Do you have any proof or are you just repeating what you've read
in the newspapers ?

>Peace, but not without justice,

Justice, but without coercion.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: weapon identification
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:44:44 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:
>In article <1992Jul29.034735.11445@convex.com> tighe@convex.com writes:
>>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.
>>
>>It is a 12 ga. shotgun manufactured by Cobray. It is based on a South
>>African weapon. It has a 12 round drum magazine. Unless you are Arnold, it
>>requires two hands to operate (like a 'tommy gun'). Semi-auto of course.
>
>Wrong, wrong, wrong.  It is a DOUBLE-ACTION revolving cylinder 12 shot
>shotgun.  It doesn't have a drum and isn't a semi-auto.  It is just a
>12 gauge revolver.  (The cylinder is turned with a spring; the gun has
>to be wound up.  Said cylinder does not swing out; there's a loading
>gate and ejection rod just like that found on most single-action
>revolvers.)

Overreacting a little don't you think?  The original poster was most
interested in make and caliber; what I posted was correct, correct,
correct. Most of the other parts of what I said were correct also.

I don't deny that it is a double-action revolver; but to someone who knows
nothing about it, and thinks it is an automatic, it is much easier to tell
them it is semi (one trigger pull, one shot).

The solution of course, is next time you answer the question yourself,
instead of sitting back and waiting to correct someone else.
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx08.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:01:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.160733.8436@bluemoon.rn.com> grant@bluemoon.rn.com  
(Grant DeLorean) writes:
> uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:
> 
> >	Allow me to play devil's advocate here.  The fact that
> >	the Brady Bill is flawed; does not preclude the drafting
> >	of waiting-period legislation without many of the problems.
> >	There is no reason that a Brady-II could not be drafted
> >	that required a background check, provided funding and 
> >	federal assistance, closed the loophole that would allow
> >	an anti-gun police chief to arbitrarily freeze gun transfers,
> >	created an appeals process, and protected police from
> >	liability.
> 
>  You have described Staggers here, except the wait in Staggers is
> minutes instead of days. The Brady folks opposed Staggers vehemently
> becuase the wait was minutes rather than days or weeks. Since Staggers
> would have done what they claimed to want and their own bill would
> not, why did they oppose it?

I agree.  The only difference is that later I raised the issue
of a 24-72 hour wait on all firearms to reduce impulse killings
and suicides.  I don't necessarily advocate such a measure and I don't
think the impact would be significant.  Afterall, any incident
which occured at night (gun stores are closed), where another
firearm was already available, where a suitable alternative 
weapon and intent to use it homicidally was available, etc.
would not be prevented by a waiting period.

I ask gun-control advocates to provide evidence that a wait
will save enough lives to justify the time and expense needed
to administer it.  I do not believe that every piece of
legislation that comes down the pike is justified by "if it
only saves one life..."  Then reconcile the wait to a reasonable
interpretation of the second amendment and/or the common law
right to effective self-protection.  If this is done, I would
consider the short wait mentioned above.  I would still insist
on a fair and basically non-discretionary procedure by which
a person under immediate threat could obtain immediately obtain
a firearm for protection.  I'd probably also extend the waiver
to persons holding valid CCW permits and - during hunting
season in the area - to rifle and shotgun purchases by licensed
hunters.

Finally.  I would mention that there are numerous articles in
the national media (per INFOTRAC) suggesting that the Staggers
bill is an NRA smokescreen to prevent "real, effective" gun
control legislation (Brady Bill) from being enacted.  They
claim that the instant check is not feasible, that the wait
is still needed, etc.  Except for my comments above, I don't
agree with these articles.  Any comments from anyone else,
please?

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:59:00 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Jul26.191702.20271@oakhill.sps.mot.com>  
pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
> Not true.  Justice "Wizzer" White and Blackmun are way up there in age.
> They will almost certainly retire in the next 4 years.
> Rehnquist and Stevens have been on a while; they will retire within
> 8 years, I predict.

Except Rehnquist (and I have other problems with him); I
don't see any potential pro-RKBA supporters in that group.

Robert K.
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Volknure - McClure
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:40:40 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <archer.217@utkux1.utk.edu>, by archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer):
> In article <1992Jul29.045337.15476@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Jul29.043505.13207@convex.com> tighe@convex.com writes:
>>>The NRA never lobbyed for it as far as I know. In fact, they did just the
>>>opposite; they bargained it away in 1986 in order to get the Firearms
>>>Owners Protection Act passed.
> 
>>Actually, I think the machine guns were lost on a last-minute addendum.
>>(The argument then becomes "Why doesn't the NRA just add a nondiscretionary
>>CCW addendum onto some legislation"?)
> 
> You are correct.  I have a transcript of the action at the time.  It was the 
> middle of the night, and the amendment was added VERY quickly, in a voice 
> vote, with RKBAers in the house were hollering "roll call."
> 
>>>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.
> 
> These were all legally in the country in '86.  There have been no more 
> imported or manufactured since.
>

And then there's the little matter of that FBI check before you
can legally own one.     
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:58:40 GMT

In <c1hm!rn.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:

>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:
>>>I never said a no-firearms fight would be fair, but I would suggest
>>>that it is somewhat less likely to end with somebody being dead.  You
>>>could dispute that point, I suppose.
>>
>>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.
>>

>Wow! Now I understand the Democratic platform. We are all supposed
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Say what? How in hell did you make this connection, or is it just
'well, my grandaddy was a Republican, my daddy is a republican,
and I'm a Republican'. If so, my response is that you simply lack
ambition. :-)

>to submit to rape! Thanks for the enlightenment, Phil. I will 
>personally whip out my 9mm and take the sucker out for the count!

>-- 
>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com

REB

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:44:21 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 <1992Jul24.082241.146532@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>A woman who wants an abortion must call a clinic and schedule
>>an appointment.  I doubt that appointments are necessary to
>>buy guns.  
>
>And there are plenty of FFLs who operate out their basement.  They
>don't advertise and you need to make arrangements to see them in
>the evenings.  This is an appointment.  By the way, I'm not making
>this up because I know such a fellow.  

According to the BATF, only 20% of the FFL holders have retail outlets and
regular hours. The rest are indiviudals, that sell guns by appointment, at
gun shows, etc.
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:22:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:

>   The NRA seeks to keep the AK-47 assault rifle legal to the public.
>That is enough for me to know they are misguided. Noone needs an
>automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense. Gang
>members however find it an excellent weapon for turf wars.

     If you don't like the NRA, fine.  But make sure you know what you're
talking about, first.

     The *automatic* AK-47 is already *heavily* restricted under current
federal law.  (Big bucks and a background check you wouldn't believe 
conducted by your friends and mine, the FBI.)  The *semi-automatic* AK-47
(which is not an "assault rifle") is legal, and it is that gun which the
NRA opposes banning, becuase not only is it less lethal than most hunting
rifles, it has virtually the same mechanism as many common hunting rifles.

     The most common weapon for gangs is the handgun.  Even the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (not pro-gun rights by anybody's definition)
said in a congressional hearing that so-called "assault rifles" (which 
aren't) *are not* crime problems *at all!*


===========================================================================
|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: kapson@dip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Without a Clue...
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:40:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.143417.12756@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>
>Letter in the July 22, 1992 Daily Herald:
>
>PHONES INSTEAD OF GUNS
>
>I read with interest this morning, the front page article about
>suburban women buying guns. Wouldn't it be much better and cheaper
>to buy a cordless phone? It's so easy to dial 911, and safer than
>using a gun. Using a gun, you have to have a good aim, and there is
>a good chance of missing your target, not to mention the ill feeling
>of having a gun in the house. No need to worry about the gun going
>off accidentally.
>
>Keep the cordless phone in which ever room you are in. What good is a
>gun in the night stand in the bedroom if you are in the kitchen? A
>dispatcher will come to your house when you dial 911 even if you
>don't say a word over the phone. Just make sure the batteries on
>your phone are always charged.
>
>Elsie Link
>Rolling Meadows
>
>Send letters to:
>
>Fence Post
>P.O. Box 280
>Arlington Heights, IL 60006
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OH NO!!! I'm moving 5 miles from here tomorrow!  I hope stupidity
isn't contageous!   8-(  8-(  8-(


+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| John Kapson   NRA IEEE ACM  |                                              |
|                             |   My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car.    |
| kapson@dip.eecs.umich.edu   |                                              |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:18:09 GMT

 Jonathon king wrote:	
>I mentioned shotguns precisely because they have never been proposed	
>for gun registration 
 WRONG!! check California 								
  1. all firearms require a 15 day waiting period and backround
     check. (including single shot shotguns)	 
  2. the original assult rifle ban in PRofCa covered all semi-auto 	
     and pump shotguns which had "could have" a capacity over 5 shells 
     (I'm not sure what ended up on the final bill could someone in
      Ca. and NJ give us the list)

  Also it's amazing that you claim to have been an NRA member but 
 you also imply that the NRA is more concerned with politics than 
 safety. I've seen the NRA train instructors and those instructors 
 offer safety classes all over the country for cost of materials.
 I've seen the NRA setup extra classes for all those people in Ca.
 that purchased firearms after the LA riots. 
 I've seen the NRA bring in extra instructors to train local insructors
 when states have made hunter safety programs mandatory. 
    
  I have also seen people that owned firearms and didn't know word
 one about safety (one was a cops kid that decided to show his dads	
 loaded revolver) but I have also seen people with cars and drivers 
 licenses that I won't ride with. (and they have passed state sponsered
 proficency tests)

  If you want to know how much fear a woman can have when stalked by
 an abusive ex. you should check if someone taped the July 24 America's
 most wanted. It dealt with stalkers and interviewed at least one woman
 that was alive because she did have a gun.
  It was a very good show.

 ************************************************************************
 all opinions expressed here are my own and no one else's



Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jglarson@watmsg.waterloo.edu (Johan Larson)
Subject: Re: A Proposed FAQ For This Newsgroup...
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:27:16 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Jul22024951@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 1992 20:32:39 GMT, sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) said:
>>>Then we'll have two FAQs, a pro-gun and an anti-gun version.  
>
>> What you're proposing is kind of like the suggestion that American
>> history books include two chapters on WWII--one based on the US viewpoint,
>> and one based on the "Nazi" interpretation containing quotes from
>> Mein Kampf in which Hitler justifies his "Final Solution."

Actually, yes.  That sounds like a great idea.
I can think of no better way of wiping out an abhorrent philosophy
than to allow its proponents to expostulate it at the tops of their voices.
I can think of no better way of ridding myself of a fool than
giving him enough rope for a hang-man's noose.
-- 
Johan Larson
                    The net is packed with objectivists, anarchists, 
                    libertarians and self-appointed threats to the current 
                    order, writing on company time with company equipment.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns