HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:51:50 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <PA142548.898.728170025@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9301262311.19@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>Kelly is confused.  I said that there doesn't seem to be any crime
>>>control benefit to such a system.  It may, or may not, have other
>>>benefits.  Some people are even known to support measures that have no
>>>tangible benefits.
>>>
>>>In fact, I have pushed for instant checks.
>>
>>You can't expect that this country will go back to the days when buying
>>a gun was as anonymous as buying a pack of cigarettes.  Yes, if the US
>>constitution were followed letter for letter, then there would be no
>>oppressive gun laws, but unless you are planning on fomenting a large
>>scale revolution, it ain't gonna happen.
>
>Why not?

Well, maybe I'm just a pessimist, but look at the way they fought to
legalize abortion, and the current fight to make it illegal.  The odds
seem to fluctuate from one side to the other dependiing on what month it
is.

I believe that it is concievable that a large part of this country's
population are completely ambiguous when it come to gun ownership.

You need lots of voters to turn the law around and/or strong public
opinion.

>>The quick check is about as liberal as some states/cities could ever get.
>>
>
>Why?

See above.

>Just because it looks impossible now is no reason not to continue to push 
>for justice.  There was a time within memory of man when prominent 
>politicians could get elected preaching, "Segegation t'day, segegation t'
>morra, an segegation fo'evah!"

They still say it, just a little more quietly.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Subject: A well-armed (and well-fed) society
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Distribution: talk
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:28:31 GMT

We've often heard the assertion ``A well-armed society is a polite society.''

Well, I would add the clause ``A well-armed AND WELL-FED society ...'', after
viewing what the wide distribution of guns has done to Somalia.

--
--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> Businesses persuade; Governments force.
From: speednut@zikzak.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bazooka for sale!
Date: 27 Jan 1993 16:10:39 +1100
Organization: Zikzak public access UNIX, Melbourne Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: zikzak.apana.org.au

Original Message From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)

>> >Cambodians?  They are all dead too.  They had one thing in common:
>> >They trusted their government.  When that trust was found to be
>> >wrongly placed, they had no means to defend themselves.  Exit many
>> >millions.
>>
>> While not wishing to be pedantic, I cannot see how these people's
>> trust/faith in their government caused their demise at the hands of an
>> aggressor. In the case of Hitler, if the jews had more personal guns
>> this may have given him a better excuse to kill them.
>>
...
>
>As for your Hitler comment, that's nonsensical at best.  Are you saying that
>the Jews were better off for having died in misery WITHOUT much of a fight?
>I think logic and history would indicate that FEWER of them would have died
>had they been able to put up a fight to enable more of the rest to survive.

Don't be silly. Read what I said! Putting faith in your government will no
more cause your demise than not doing so by arming yo
that even if the Jews were fully armed, they would still not have been
able to withstand the German assault.

Whether your "logic and history" can prove they may have survived is very
dubious. Unless well trained I can't see how they could possibly fight off
battle hardened soldiers and tanks. They may have forestalled the war, but
not stopped it. Whether the Jews being armed would have stopped them
going to the gas chambers, cannot be substantiated. It may have resulted
in the German airforce bombing the "crap" out of towns rather than
collecting the occupants.


I do not in any way condone the genocide that occurred in WW11.

>> All those Iraqis sitting like ducks in a shooting gallery in their
>> sand bunkers were all armed but were killed just the same.
>>
>All those Iraqis SURRENDERED in large part.  If we'd been like the nazis,
>they wouldn't have gone home again the way they did.

And what of the 200,000 that died? Did they not believe that there
government would support them? Did they not put their trust in their
weapons to stop them being killed? Yes. What good did it do them when
the "invading power" has better weaponry. I am sure if the US had
wanted to eradicate the Iraqis, they could have done so whether the
Iraqis had guns or not. See my point?

>The danger of tyranny exists EVERYWHERE, at least everywhere there are
>PEOPLE.  To that extent, it's a UNIVERSAL problem.

I beg to differ.


-- 
		Zikzak public access UNIX, Melbourne, Australia.
From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 02:40:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Fort Collins Gun Ban!!  Jan. 19
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Report on the outcome of the Ft. Collins meeting....

City Council's agenda was rather long. The item of concern did not 
come up for consideration until after midnite. The meeting started
at 1830. 

The item was a resolution that contained a large number of "whereas"
that indicated a concern with violence nationwide as well as in this
small city. The whereas list ended with 3 items that were things that
Council was supposed to do.

One of those 3 items was to encourage Council to support firearms laws.

All the "firearms" related material was amended out of the resolution
with only one temper tantrum by the Mayor. 

Final tally was 6:1 for the amended version which did not seek to blame
firearms.

The number of pro-gun stalwarts staying was impressive.

Most impressive was the woman who started, " I am a woman who is pro-choice
on firearms......"

:-)

Ron Miller
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: "Sniper" with John Berringer
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Date: 25 Jan 1993 10:17 EST  

In article <1993Jan22.125735.11279@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbvox1.att.com writes...
>I was watching the Military Industrial Complex channel (A&E) last night
>and saw an advertisement for a new movie called "Sniper" starring John
>Berringer.  The movie starts playing, I believe, Feb. 24th.  Look for it
>at a theatre near you, and all that ...
> 
>One of the voiceovers during the ad said, "One shot, one kill"  Hmm,
>sounds very familiar; I wonder if material from Carlos Hathcocks' book
>was used, or if he or any of the men in his book was a consultant.

I saw the Siskel&Ebert review.  The movie is about two snipers who are given
the mission to carry out an illegal assasination in Panama.  I think that the
main sniper carries a Rem 700 PSS and his buddy has a H&K (!!).  You see some
preview shots where the sniper runs around in ghillies (sp?).  The movie got
two thumbs mainly because it was technically well made with excellent
cinematography (sp?) (... but what about the the H&K  :-)
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Virginia's proposed gun-a-month law
Date: 27 Jan 1993 13:24:11 GMT
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com

In article <8110313@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)  
writes:
> In talk.politics.guns, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
> 
>  > >Commonwealth address last nite.  A survey (paid for by the Governor)  
shows 83%  
>  > >support for a monthly limit on gun purchases.  This is an effort to rid  
>  > >Virginia of the "gun-runner's capitol" reputation the Govenor claims we  
have.
> 
> The legislature does not care if one wishes to purchase a matched set.  (
> There is a lot they don't care abaout, though.)
> 
> When are they going to fix the drivers licensing system such that you need
> to show residency?
> 
The DMV has claimed that that would be too much of a hardship.  That other  
states can do it is of no interest to them.

> David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post

Jim
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 25 Jan 1993 21:23:00 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan22.223100.10106@ttinews.tti.com>, hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
> In article <n8h364m@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

> }I'd be sending kudos to the NRA if this were the only message that
> }comes from their words, since it says nothing about the "don't bother
> }with safties" garbage.  However, this isn't what the NRA is saying,
> }despite your biased interpretation as someone already familiar with
> }safe gun handling (i.e., someone that knows enough to use a safety if
> }it's there).  They're saying to not bother learning to use safeties at
> }all, in the literal interpetation of their words (as paraphrased by
> }C.D. Tavares).  ...
> 
> C.D. Tavares is wrong.  Nowhere, in any of the NRA lesson plans, does it
> say to ignore safeties.  If some NRA instructor said anything like that in
> a class he was expressing his own opinion, not NRA policy.  IMHO, it's a
> damn stupid opinion.  If anyone of his students gets hurt because of it
> and sues him the NRA will probably throw him to the wolves, and rightly
> so.

Before you go beating me up on the basis of what she says that he claimed
that they paraphrased about what I wrote, here's WHAT I WROTE:

* Have you seen the modern NRA safety course curriculum?  The entire
* discussion of safeties runs something like, "Some guns have safeties.
* Here's one that has a safety.  Don't depend on them for anything.
* They have nothing to do with real gun safety."  And then they are
* never referred to, identified, or used for the rest of the course.  

* The message being, if the gun is not safe without the safety on, it's
* not safe.  And it's very intentional that the course teaches this
* message.  This is the message I think you are seeing on this group.

> The NRA classes stress safe gun handling and warn not to _rely_ on
> safeties. 

Isn't this what I wrote?

> Nowhere do they say not to _use_ them.  That's the important
> distinction that seems to have been missed in this discussion.  One should
> _always_ use whatever safety options are available, but _never_ rely on
> mechanical safeties as a substitute for proper gun handling procedure.

However, nowhere do they say TO USE THEM, either.  At least my instructors
did not, both times I took the course, two different places.  They are
treated as completely irrelevant to keeping your gun safe.  You being an
instructor and all can look at the actual materials and see if any of it
tells people when and where to "use safeties," but I've never seen it taught.

> Note that every firearm user's manual I've ever read has taken the same
> attitude.  They all stress safe gun handling and warn against reliance on
> mechanical safeties.

-- 

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...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Virginia's proposed gun-a-month law
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 03:23:35 GMT

In article <1k62u2INNl6q@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>No, the driver's license is the root cause.  A NY resident can drive to any DMV  
>office, fill out a form that states he's moving to Virginia, and then walk out  
>the door in less than an hour with a valid photo Virginia driver's license.  He  
>can then use that to go to the nearest gun store, and buy a case of Davis crap,  
>assuming his record is clear enough to pass the instant check, and then drive  
>back to NY.  All in a day.

And within that same day, the dealer from whom he bought the guns will
have reported a multipule gun sale to the BATF (as required by law.)
If the government is really interested in preventing such smuggling,
they already have the required information. 

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder
From: vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Sniper" with John Berringer
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:45:44 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1993Jan22.125735.11279@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbvox1.att.com writes:
>I was watching the Military Industrial Complex channel (A&E) last night

Hmmm. I had always thought of the Discovery Channel having that honorable
title. Seems like any time I flip onto Discovery, there's Wings, or FirePower,
or Carriers, or one of those other shows I lump under the generic title
	"Blowing shit up".

Guess I don't watch enough A&E.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: 43-1 ratio BS
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<LAMBERT.93Jan21040051@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1993Jan21.030904.15593@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:25:51 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:09:04 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) said:
>>> So, excluding suicides (who arguably would have found another means
>>> had a gun not been available), there were 64 criminal homicides and accidents
>>> and 9 cases of self-defence/justifiable homicide. 

[Deletions]

>>> Produces a final (very rough) number, that: "A gun in the home,
>>> assuming no one there has a history of violence and basic safety 
>>> rules are followed, is 250 times more likely to be used to prevent
>>> a crime, than hurt a friend or relative."

>>Ahem, you can only only multiply the numbers together if they are
>>independant.  In particular, "history of violence" and "alcohol abuse"
>>are most definitely correlated.  Furthermore, you double counted the
>>correction for burglaries (the 9 cases above were not just burglars.)

> Ok, recaluclating based on these corrections, that's between 1:20 
> and 1:30 (depending on the correlation between alcohol use and 
> violence: 1:20 if they are inseperable, 1:30 if they are totally
> unrelated), in contrast to the study's 43:1. I think it's
> safe to say the study is seriously flawed...

No, this is still not valid.  You apply your multiplier for "history
of violence" to only one side of the ratio, but it seems probable that
justifiable domestic homicides are going to be just as correlated with
"history of violence".

How about doing it his way:

12 accidents + 41 criminal homicides : 7 self-defense during
altercation + 2 burglars = 53:9 = 6:1

If we exclude homes with a "history of violence" using your 0.2
multiplier

12 accidents + 41*0.2 criminal homicides : 7*0.2 self-defense during
altercation + 2 burglars = 20.2:3.4 = 6:1

It is possible that those accidents are also strongly associated with
"history of violence".  If we apply that 0.2 multipler to accidents as
well, then we get 10.6:3.4 = 3:1

These uses are measured by counting bodies.  If we are interested in
measuring costs and benefits, we really should compare gun defence against
crime with gun assaults against friends and family.  Both of these
have a chance of leading to death -- if these chances are the same,
then the ratio remains the same (between 3:1 and 6:1).  Of course, 
if the chances are different the ratio will change, but I don't know
of any data that could help us here.

So, if you exclude suicides and homes with a "history of violence" the
ratio is more like 3:1 or 6:1 than 43:1.

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Virginia's proposed gun-a-month law
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:35:03 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


And now we have more ammo for the gun banners.

Some nut started shooting people on the GW Parkway outside the CIA HQ
on Monday, the day before the NRA bus trip to Richmond.

Two dead, three injured, no perp.  I could understand if the person
was shooting at the CIA, but why at motorists just passing by?  Police
seem to think it was some sort of vendetta (see previous sentence).

I hate conspiracy theories, but this is just a bit too pat to be
coincidence.  We'll see how the bus trip goes, especially now that
this story is front page large type in the Post.

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.
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray) 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Letter to U.S. News
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:26:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray) 

Toby Bradshaw wrote:

TB>I sent this letter to U.S. News and World Report following the
TB>recent editorial.


TB>Dear sir:

TB>        John Leo's anti-gun diatribe in the 25 January U.S. News gives a
TB>second-hand account of a journalist receiving a federal firearms license
....

Careful now Toby, 'cause this ain't so....at least when I got mine there were
no fingerprint requirements. I suspect all they need to know they can get
via SSN traces.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . People who kill people give guns a bad name
                                                                                                                                
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray) 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 1.2 Million Handgun D
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:21:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray) 

Michael P. Brininstool wrote amongst other things....

MPB>>> You can massage numbers and wave them at each other from now until Slick
MPB>>> Willie is run out of office, and it will change nothing.  Except the read
MPB>>> ship of the newsgroup.  It will move it down to two.

MPB>I think the whole argument is irrelevant.  I do not care how many times a
MPB>gun is used or misuded a year.  The Constitution says I can have a gun, I
MPB>WILL have a gun, no law infringing that right will be observed! PERIOD!
MPB>You can try to justify why they should be taken away, or why they
MPB>shouldn't, but the main reason we have them now is the Second Amendment.
MPB>You want to argue that the Second Amendment is being misinterpreted, then
MPB>read the letters written by the people who wrote the Constitution and the
MPB>Bill of Rights, addressed to the public, explaining what they meant, and
MPB>why they were there.  You want to argue that the founding fathers wouldn't
MPB>have allowed this if they knew about auto and semi-auto weapons, horse
MPB>shit!  Fully auto weapons, or close to it, were around in that time period,
MPB>but were experimental.  Even if they were not, By that logic, the
MPB>newpapers and books and public speeches are protected by the first.  That
MPB>would mean that TV, movies, and radio are NOT protected by the first
MPB>amendment!
...

Michael.....

         _
        ( |
      ___\ \
     (__()  `-|
     (___()   |
     (__()    |
     (_()__.--|


              ....well said. I think we need to think more along these lines
because erosion is a slow but sure process and we seem to be more and more
inclined to accepting/rationalizing each little anti-second amendment move. We
shouldn't give an inch on this and if that's perceived as being negative,
so be it.....I want "them" to tell me how many inches of their First Amendment
rights they are willing to forgo!
---
 . OLX 2.2 . People who kill people give guns a bad name
                                                                                         
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Virginia's proposed gun-a-month law
Date: 27 Jan 1993 13:32:50 GMT
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com

In article <DLB.93Jan21105936@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com  
(David Barton) writes:
> In article <8110313@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David
> Post) writes:
> 
>    When are they going to fix the drivers licensing system such that you need
>    to show residency?
> 
> I hope everyone realizes that this is a red herring in Virginia.
> 
> We have an instant check system here.  Unless I am badly mistaken, it
> checks residency as well as for felony convictions.  The driver's
> license bunkum is just that.
> 
No, the driver's license is the root cause.  A NY resident can drive to any DMV  
office, fill out a form that states he's moving to Virginia, and then walk out  
the door in less than an hour with a valid photo Virginia driver's license.  He  
can then use that to go to the nearest gun store, and buy a case of Davis crap,  
assuming his record is clear enough to pass the instant check, and then drive  
back to NY.  All in a day.  Easy money.  The ease of ability to get a Virginia  
Driver's license, or it's acceptance as valid id for gun purchases, is the main  
problem.

I'm not saying the above process is legal, but that it works flawlessly.

A legally valid ID should not be so easy to obtain.  Just mailing the license  
to the person, instead of handing it to them, would solve most of it.   
Requiring that it have a street address, instead of a P.O. box, when used for  
gun purchases, would solve 99% of the rest.

> 					Dave Barton
> 					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com

Jim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns