HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Hattori shooting
Organization: BNR Inc. RTP, NC
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:05:09 GMT

>Brice Dowaliby, wrote:
>So, now knowing about the wife and kiddies, have I changed my
>mind about the shooting?  Do I now think it was the "right"
>thing to do?
 
>So, what would I have done in the shooter's position?
>No guarantee, but I like to think that I would have grabbed the baseball
>bat and my wife would have grabbed the shotgun.  With my wife beside me
>(perhaps a little behind, but not so's I'm in the line of fire) I would
>confront the intruder.  If he approached in such a way as to give
>me the impression he was a threat, I would respond with the bat.

>If he pulled a weapon on me I would leave it to my wife to shoot.

 Brian do you have any kids or family? I'm not trying to flame you for your 
response, I just want to point out that before I had a family my out look and
tatics were different.
 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression you would not fire on another
person even if they broke into your house. I notice you are from NH. I wonder if the 
low crime rate there is causing you to misjudge the severity of the problem elsewhere.
 
 I would not pick up a baseball bat, night stick, mace, kitchen knife, or anything
else unless it was the only weapon I could reach in time. Using anything less than
the best tool available (my firearm) increases the chances of my family getting hurt
(after I'm disposed of) or at the very least my children growing up without their
father. I am going to do whatever it takes to keep that from happening period!
 I also would not have my wife right behind me (increases the chance of the kids being 
orphans). My main tatic is to use cover to my advantage and keep any confrontation as
far away from the family as possible. I am the first line of defense my wife the last
line (actually our 85lb roving motion detector is the first).  
 The point here is that my wife doesn't have to decide if she should shoot or not
since the person in question had to go through me and the beast, there is no doubt
in her mind that this person is a threat.

 Again I'm not flaming you. When I was single I put myself in a lot of situations 
under prepared that I would not do now. I was lucky back then as I barely got out
of some of them in one piece. But when you suddenly realize that the future of your
wife and little ones depends on you being in one piece, your attitude and tatics 
change.     
 
	Myron Petro
	NRA, USPSA
        DVC y'all
	**************************************************************************
	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the 
	 Second Amendment.   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: the US elections...
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:19:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.010014.11159@csus.edu> altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>This does not underscore the need for some solution to the abuses of
>both handguns, semi- and automatic weapons, nor lessen my distaste for
>the need for these violent tools in this violent society.

Why stop there?  Why the emphasis on guns?

EVERYONE wants to reduce crime.  Opponents of gun control point out
that gun restrictions don't accomplish that, and it's expensive.
We don't have the resources to waste on failed strategies.

>I don't have a solution to this problem

That's all well and good, but why the push for gun control?

>I certainly don't think the drug war is helping matters.

We agree.  Will a gun war be any different?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: corun@access.digex.com (Corun MacAnndra)
Subject: Re: Guns & self defense
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:27:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.002301.19866@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

[scenario deleted]

I think you've been watching too much television. In the scenario you describe,
only someone with police/combat training would have even the *slightest*
chance of coming out of that alive. Somewhere between slim and none. Do you
honestly believe that you can do three things unprepared faster than someone
can do one who is prepared for it?

>>Don't ban the guns, ban the uses to which they are put.
>
>Which now-legal uses should be banned?  Murder and assault are already
>banned.  What will be the benefit of banning self-defense?  How about
>recreational shooting?  Hunting?  (I note that hunters are provide the
>bulk of the habitat preservation money.  Sure, more would be nice, but
>we non-hunters aren't kicking much in now and it isn't clear that that
>will change if the hunters stop.)

You missed the point here. I didn't say a word about banning hunting or
recreational shooting. I was talking about violent crime in general. If
there is some way to curtail the uses to which guns are put, then we obviate
the *need* for them for self defense.

>>Greater social consciousness is what's needed, and you can't regulate that
>>with a bunch of laws.
>
>Right.  So maybe we should oppose those who want to propose measures
>that won't help but will use the resources we need to increase
>social conciousness.

I don't understand this comment. Are you saying that there are people putting
forth measures to ban guns, knowing that they won't do any good, and then
using the money they get from the gov't to raise social consiousness? If so,
are you saying these people should be opposed? Or are you saying it's useless
to try to raise social consciousness?

Bb,
Corun




-- 
===========================================================================
    Corun MacAnndra    |    My opinions *are* those of my boss, because
  Dark Horde by birth  |   he is me, and I am he, and we are all together.
    Moritu by choice   |                 Coo coo cachoob.
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Need Better NRA Ads NOW !
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:09:12 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1992Nov16.164431.24212@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com
(The Polymath) writes:
>}*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.
>
>I have to agree.  If you survive I'll congratulate you.  If you die, I'll
>mourn your passing.  I think we'll all (us and the cops) be much better
>off if it never happens at all.  Making the police change their procedures
>in response to public pressure now is safer all around than shooting it
>out with them when they make a mistake.

Do you have suggestions for how to go about making them change their
procedures?

Have you made such an attempt?  With what success?

No flame here, I'm only seeking information...

   don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Hattori shooting
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:36:01 GMT

In article <BD.92Nov23084329@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>Frankly, the first I had heard about the wife and children was
>in the responses to my post.

Shows just how little you knew about the situation, doesn't it?

>No, I don't.  I still feel that the guy was wrong in shooting Hattori.
>Part of the responsibility that comes with gun ownership is knowing
>when to shoot and when not to.  It's all well and good for

No, the responsibility is to do what a reasonable person would do.
Cops kill people who are not real threats all the time. As long as
the perception of a threat is reasonable, it is a justifiable shoot.
You are not required to be omniscient to own a gun.

-- 
Will Intel be the only X86 chip maker without a 586?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Firearms laws in the Maryland, Virginia, D.C. area...?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:33:51 GMT

In article <18NOV199202175216@zeus.tamu.edu> mjm3170@zeus.tamu.edu (MATTSON, MATTHEW JUL) writes:
>Because i might possibly be taking a job with the Federal Govt. this next year
>(I cannot expand on this...) I am interested in the firearms laws of the states
>I mentioned in the subject line.  Can anyone help me out?

If memory serves, Maryland has a 5(?)-day waiting period on firearms
sales and a ban on "assault weapons" (whatever they are...). Virginia
has a instant background check system for purchases. In Washington,
D.C. _all_ handguns are illegal at all times and places (unless you
are a police officer of licensed private security), longarms are
legal but must be stored disassembled.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:06:09 GMT

>|> Again remember getting our message in the anti-RKBA controled media
>|> is difficult. I believe that the NRA is doing what they can. Why
>|> not cut them some slack. I intend to upgrade to a 5 year membership
>|> so that I can vote and help keep the Old "Guard" out. The old guard
>|> being the leaders that were more interested in sponsoring target
>|> shooting events than protecting our rights.
>
>Let us not go overboard. Sponsoring target shooting events is important;
>the NRA needs people with appropriate expertise and enthusiasm for this.
>Ditto for hunter education, police training, and all the other things
>the NRA does.  Though I agree the NRA needs to focus a lot more on RKBA
>than they have in the past, I don't want to see them drop the other
>activities as a result.

Sorry I didn't say that well. I have no problem with the target shooting
aspects of the NRA. I would like to try some myself. My objection
was in the imbalance.

>
>Bottom line: NRA needs more members; from my perspective the current
>leadership is fine.
>-- 
>  Alan S. Watt
>  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
>  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
>  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Science Fiction (Was: I HATE to vote for Bush! But...)
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Nov15.054918.8962@microsoft.com> <1e8si9INNl0e@eagle.natinst.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:20:07 GMT

In article <1e8si9INNl0e@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris
Bartz) writes:

   I thought that the Speaker of the House did NOT usually vote.  I
   think I remember when the flag-burning resolution came up Foley said
   he would bring it up for a vote but would take the unusual step of
   voting against it.

The leader of both houses does not vote except in a tie; however, the
Speaker is also a member of the House, whereas the Vice President is
not a Senator.  The Speaker frequently yields his chair to colleagues
for specific periods, either when he wishes to be elsewhere, or for
the purposes of "acting like a congressman" (making speeches, voting,
addressing the House, attending committees).  Thus, if an issue comes
up that Foley feels strongly about, he yields his chair.  This is
actually a sneaky way of influencing a vote: if Foley is for a bill,
during the vote he can persuade some Democratic congressman who is
somewhat against to take the chair "for the experience", thus trading
a negative vote for a positive one.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@makalu.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Re: Assault Weapons [Was: a few words about election results]
Originator: vojak@makalu.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:52:30 GMT

altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:

>But on the other hand, if I piss off my neighbor, he can go down to the
>store, buy a gun and come back home and shoot me. All in one afternoon.

 Ok.  Why when the NRA proposes modification to the waiting
 periods such as, no wait for CURRENT gun owners, just
 for first time gun owners, groups like HCI opposes it?

 I own several guns that would be capable of injuring/killing my
 neighbor.  Do you think that if I truly get into an enraged/
 homicidal state that I'll go to Wal-Mart and buy a NEW gun just
 to kill someone with.  "Duh! I really don't want to get my SIG
 dirty, so I'll go buy a S&W to kill that person with."

 In reality most guns used for crime are:

 1) Not purchased legally.
 2) Obtained longer than 5 days before thery are used.

 In the case of legally purchased guns used in crimes.  The
 vast majority are purchased LONG before they are ever used.

 On the other hand, there are dozens of documented cases of
 people purchasing guns because they fear for their lives, and
 then using them the same day.  Most of these cases seem to
 involve women.  But what the hell.  Their ONLY women.  They
 can just rely on some MAN to protect them, Right.  NOT!!!

                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
                                NRA, ILA, CFC

------------------------------------------
Anti-Gun President, Anti-Gun Congress,
Better buy what you want BEFORE Dec 31.
----------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A Modern, HIPE
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:47:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.104120.9294@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> romigr@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
>What makes anybody think that the entire military will side with
>the gov. if there is another civil war?  

Ignorance?  Stupidity?  Wishful thinking?

+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      |                                               |
| NRA               ILA |  "Fear a goverment that fears your guns."     |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com |                                               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQCNAisCo2UAAAED/i9nZNA3RtKL1a3SPShkRYQqkl1tQX2ky8ghJp3ljKkfQlN9
UyyWZaurtJhb9holVjk1w8gVF5UflMolf08qOdvPUz60oH+sDUPG0+WiClBDTDus
QgFnP4t2BB1mpLxzhi4E++0+3zH231ItA+0l9Cp5fr70rOX69EXJO1UF3PhDAAUR
tCNKb2huIEthcHNvbiA8amthcHNvbkBuaXMubmFpdGMuY29tPg==
=TNIh
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: A Coffee-House Conversation with an Imaginary Nadja (Was Re: Eva Clayton bio)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:19:12 GMT

In article <37624@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
># Fine: Explain how you plan to disarm _criminals_ (completely and
># totally), despite the fact only 8% of them legally purchase their
># guns. Once you have explained this, your argument will be relevant.

>I love the argument "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have
>guns."

Would you like to address the issue, or just aviod it with meaningless
rhetoric. It is a fact (according to BAFT statistics) that only
92% of criminals use guns they did _not_ purchase legally. Therefore,
all rhetoric asside, you need to explain how you can disarm these
people before you can talk about "if no one had a gun..." (as you
did.)

>Just imagine how that would clean up our judicial system.  If simple
>possession of a gun were punishable by 10 years in jail, then we could
>get all the criminals off the street without having to prove any
>complicated cases. 
 
Possession of a handgun or an assembled rifle or shotgun is _already_
a crime (felony) in Washington D.C. This law seems to have aboslutely
no use what so ever in getting criminals off the streets.

>No expert witnesses, no crime labs, no dueling
>attorneys.

So your proposed anti-gun law would also throw away the Fifth and
Sixth Amendments? (Trial by jury, the accused may have a lawyer for
his defense, call witnesses and produce evidence in his defense, and
be presumed innocent until porven guilty)

>A criminal wouldn't dare carry a gun, because that would identify him
>immediately as a criminal.

It's very strange then, that criminals in Washington D.C. carry guns
all the time, despite the complete ban on them.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
From: Chris Struble <mece3d@uh.jetson.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: New concealed carry in Texas...
Date: 24 Nov 1992 00:00:18 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.7.104.199
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
X-XXMessage-ID: <A736C3B3CB0268C7@mac.me.uh.edu>
X-XXDate: Mon, 23 Nov 92 17:21:55 GMT

>skeeter@skatter.usask.ca writes:
>
>Introduced into the legislature; not passed yet; what are the odds
>Governor Richards will sign it even if it does pass?
>

About the same odds as a snowball in Matamoros. Still, I think I will
write my State Rep. on this one. In favor, of course.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christian Struble    | Department of Mechanical Engineering         |
| MECE3D@UH.JETSON.EDU | University of Houston, Houston 77204-4792    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|    The true civilization is where every man gives to every other    |
|    every right that he claims for himself  --  Robert Ingersoll     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.rape
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The "Invisible" Glock Mythology
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:34:54 GMT

In article <4400270@iftccu.boeing.com> bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
>Speaking of invisible stuff --- I've never had anybody check the contents
>of a thermous.  Could be coffee --- could be gasoline, or something even 
>MORE dangerous.   Or maybe it's just MY thermous they don't check.
>Airport security is a joke.

It was once pointed out to me that tonfas (including the police-issue
PR-24 sort) are as effective a weapon as a knife and made entirely
of wood. They go right through an ariport x-ray machine.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The "Invisible" Glock Mythology
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:12:40 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


There are also knives made from this space-age polymer that keep a
nice edge and are indetectable.  For sale at any gunshow.

One is used in a current movie about a US hijacking: PASSENGER 57.  It
was carried by one of the flight attendants cum hijackers.

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
----------------------------------------------------------------
Use your ultimate firepower:  VOTE!
-- 
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: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Gun Control:  A modern, REALISTIC view.
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:42:12 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

In article <1992Nov16.085334.10791@nntp.uoregon.edu> davidw@cie.uoregon.edu (David Weingarten) writes:
> 
>Yeah, they're civil, we're barbarians.  I'd rather have mortar attacks
>on the White House (which is pretty damn unlikely to happen just
>because we illegalize guns) than to have 20,000 people/year get killed
>by guns.  The White House could be reinforced to withstand it.  The
>Common Man can't afford or acquire heavy-duty body armour.

I've been waiting to say this for a LONG time.

I listen to NPR a lot.  I happened to listen to one of their shows regarding
racially motivated attacks in the UK.  I listened to victim after victim talk
about how they'd been assaulted in their own homes by vicious gangs of Whites.

Then something dawned on me.  I asked myself, "Where did most of these attacks
take place?"  "In their HOMES".  I then asked myself, "Where do most such 
attacks in the US take place?"  "In the street in isolated areas".

What's the difference?  Why don't people get attacked in their homes that often
here?  Because they have GUNS.  Because it would be DANGEROUS.  Why do they
get attacked in the street?  Because that's the place where someone in the US
is LEAST likely to have a gun.  It's SAFER to attack a Black person in the
street.  These people aren't brave.  They're COWARDS.  British (and CERTAINLY
German) law reinforces their cowardice by providing them with a steady supply
of UNARMED victims.

Now what you're telling me is that the UK is LESS "barbarous" because it's 
safe for a skinhead to attack a Black man in his home there, whereas HERE, the
Black man (or Indian, or Vietnamese) would SHOOT somebody who threatened his
life and those of his family members.  THAT is the "civility" of the fat, well-
fed gauleiter who never throws a rock at a synogogue, but rests safe in the 
knowledge that there are others around to do so, and that the police won't 
interfere with the fun, and that the victim can't resist.  If that's your
idea of "civilization", you can keep it.  The Ostrogoths couldn't think of
anything much worse.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns