HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: uk09365@nx09.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Gun Bans
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:10:44 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug13.141500.18085@stortek.com>  
vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
> mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
> 
> >The problem is that the gun control advocates forget about the 645,000
> >successful self-defense uses of handgus, etc.  Almost all of these
> >individuals (except those who choose to disobey a gun ban) would be
> >disarmed by outlawing guns, and many of those 645,000 self-defenses  
would
> >become armed robberies, rapes, and murders; these statistics would far
> >overpowe the relatively few suicides who change their minds because "I
> >can't do it with a gun now."  Think about it.
> 
> I remember being in Chicago when the "It's not a gun ban, it's a
> registration ban", GUN BAN went into effect. One of the local papers
> had a cartoon showing: Man in bathrobe aiming a handgun at a obvious
> burglar type inside a house. The burglar is saying. "If that gun isn't
> registered, your in more trouble than me".  Pretty sad when the
> government makes honest citizens into "criminals".
> 

	If a gun ban was put into effect I wonder how many
	of those 645,000 defensive uses would end with a
	suspect at the bottom of a river or buried in a shallow
	grave rather than scared off or held for police.

Robert K.


	
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jackson@bluemoon.rn.com (jack cole)
Subject: RYAN for Ohio Sate Representative - 26th District
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 20:35:25 EDT

Today I met Rick Ryan as he was going door to door passing out 
handbills.  

I asked him where he stood on gun control.  He replied " I'm for a 
waiting period for all gun purchases and I'm for some kind of 
handgun control:

Rick Ryan is running for state representative in Ohio's new 26th 
house district.


Jackson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alan@lancaster.nsc.com (The Hepburn)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:25:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation

In article <cthong.714250623@sfu.ca>, cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
|> 
|> then why are ammunition diameters getting larger and larger by the decade?

Are they?  Is there something larger than my replica Brown Bess flintlock?  It
was a common PISTOL during the late 1700's and early 1800's and it shoots a
.69 calibre ball.  Can you identify a modern handgun with significantly larger
diameter than that?  In the decades since the Brown Bess was designed we must
be up to diameters approaching metres if your contention is correct.

|> and how do you account for less killing power, decreased calibres and modern 
|> doo hickeys like .5 semi autos and caseless ammunition?
|>

If ammunition diameters are going up, as you state above, then how do YOU
account for decreased calibres?  Accounting for other "modern doo-hickeys"
is simple:  the ceaseless march of technology.  By the way: caseless ammo
is hardly new.  My flintlock, and my caplocks all use caseless ammo:  I
pour an appropriate amount of gunpowder down the barrel, apply a patched ball,
ram it to the breech, prime the arm, aim, and fire.  No cases to police up
afterward.  That technology is as old as firearms.  I know that you didn't
mean that when you mentioned caseless ammo, but before you start throwing
around the latest media buzzwords, you should stop and do some research on
what they mean.

-- 
Alan Hepburn           "An ignorant person is one who doesn't know
National Semiconductor       what you have just found out."
Santa Clara, Ca              
alan@berlioz.nsc.com                              Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Gun Bans
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:15:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.

mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:

>The problem is that the gun control advocates forget about the 645,000
>successful self-defense uses of handgus, etc.  Almost all of these
>individuals (except those who choose to disobey a gun ban) would be
>disarmed by outlawing guns, and many of those 645,000 self-defenses would
>become armed robberies, rapes, and murders; these statistics would far
>overpowe the relatively few suicides who change their minds because "I
>can't do it with a gun now."  Think about it.

I remember being in Chicago when the "It's not a gun ban, it's a
registration ban", GUN BAN went into effect. One of the local papers
had a cartoon showing: Man in bathrobe aiming a handgun at a obvious
burglar type inside a house. The burglar is saying. "If that gun isn't
registered, your in more trouble than me".  Pretty sad when the
government makes honest citizens into "criminals".


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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:51:31 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Aug07.164333.13277@ecst.csuchico.edu> jimmay@csuchico.edu (Jim May) writes:
>In article <1992Aug3.181226.912@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles 
>Scripter) writes:
>> Since most gunshot deaths are intentional,
>> then we'll see an increase in murders with baseball bats, knives, etc.
>
>Actually, most gun shooting is spur of the moment and not planned ahead.  
>It is also far more lethal than other attempts at venting anger.  

"Intentional" and "planned ahead" are not the same things, pal.  If you
decide on the spur of the moment to kill someone, you still *intend* to
kill them (the difference is in homicide degrees,not intent).  You are
also making an unwarranted assumption that all (or even a reasonable
fraction) of shootings are "heat of passion" shootings, which is patently
false.

>I think 
>anyone would rather be 50 feet away from a criminal with a baseball bat 
>than one with a gun.  

What has this got to do with anything?  If you can come up with an effective
way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals without affecting law-abiding
citizens, you'll be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize (and don't suggest a
complete ban, because we all know that won't even come close to working).

>This is abundantly evident in a comparison between 
>the U.S. and Canada when gun laws are far more strict.  In Seattle the 
>murder rate is several times that of Vancouver, BC even though the cities 
>are comparable in many other ways.  The big difference is that in BC 
>people survive attacks because guns are used far less.

The demographics of Vancouver and Seattle are markedly different; in fact,
when the raw data is examined and racial differences are accounted for, a
teenage white male runs a greater risk of being shot in Vancouver than in
Seattle.  Go read some more, you still haven't figured it out.


Mike Ruff
U.T. Austin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: No Knocks
Summary: It happened *here*.
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:21:38 GMT

In <1992Aug18.195925.17552@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>Wasn't there a recent case of some thugs running around doing this?
>They'd yell "POLICE", and kick in the door, and then have fun with
>the family that had been caught off guard (uh, that is they did
>this until someone shot them...).

It happened in Detroit last May.  The name of the homeowner
temporarily escapes me.... Cedric Brown, I think.

The man deserves a medal.  The perp was armed with a 9mm, if
memory serves, and Brown fortunately had a .45 handy.
-- 
Russ Cage                  wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (until 8/28/92)
            russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu (until whenever)
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *
                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 17:09:05 GMT

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>>painless and foolproof.  Those who want to ban suicide had better 
>>plan on a bare rubber room for each of us....  Even that won't stop 
>>someone who is REALLY determined.

>Huh?  It says that death by asphyxiation is painless?  I've heard that
>it's an INCREDIBLY painful way to go...

 As the people who have died that way (or any other way) aren't
around to give us the benefot of their experience no one can say
for sure...

-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

        Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:03:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <cthong.713769656@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>....and as a last note on s'poreans'  lack of freedom  and having an anal 
>retentive  govt.....
>my american friend.....  we have lee kuan yew.
>you should read up on him.

You could of course, suggest some sources if you are being serious.

>you on the other hand have to choose between  BUSH and CLINTON....

Did I miss something? Were all the other cadidates killed in a plane
crash? I for one am voting for Marrou, candidate for the Libertarian Party.
Indeed Bush and Clinton are the front-runners at the moment. How does
this obligate me to vote for them?

>heh....

-- 
The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 3
Date: 22 Aug 92 03:37:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
>>
>> A police review judged that Tony's action was not criminal.
>> 
>> A coroners inquest, in a split decision agreed.
>
>Huh? A previous post stated:
>
>- The inquest jury likewise did not agree.  Of the six jurors, three
>- considered it intentional homicide, one called it negligent homicide,
>- and the remaining two deemed it excusable homicide.  Unfortunately,
>- the jurors findings were only "advisory" and Canova has chosen to
>- ignore inquest findings which, in any other circumstances, would
>- clearly call for a criminal trial.
>
>3 persons calling it intentional homicide, 1 calling it negligent
>homicide, and 2 calling it excusable homicide hardly qualifies
>as an agreement with the police deparment's review.
>
>If this previous post is incorrect, does someone know the facts?

That previous post came from me.  My information comes (as I said in
the original post) from the Seattle Times.  Specifically, the front-
page article from August 8th, 1992 entitled "SWAT killing: no charges"
with the subtitle "State finds no negligence despite split inquest
jury".

To quote directly from the Seattle Times article:

  "In June, after a three-day inquest, four of six jurors said Aston
   committed a crime when he shot Pratt.  Three said it was intentional,
   one said it was negligent and two called it an excusable homicide."


                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 17:33:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.210735.5423@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>				This mention of a "well regulated
>>militia" in the same context of the "right to bear arms" has been
>>interpreted to mean that people have the right to bears arms in a well
>>regulate militia, e.g., a state militia.  
>
>Feel free to provide court cites where that interpretation has
>actually been used.  It turns out that the Supremes haven't considered
>the 2nd and state militias, and it is unlikely that they will.  After
>all, the meaning of "well regulated Militia" was an armed people NOT
>under the control of govt.  (Fletcher's Political Works, pub'd in
>1749, not to mention usage and discussion by Madison et al and the
>legislative history, especially the amendment proposed by Gerry, which
>was accepted, and a "common defense" amendment, which was rejected.)

Andy,

Surely you can't expect this guy to actually provide some information
from a Supreme Court decision, supporting the collective right
interpretation of the Second Amendment.

He probably hasn't even HEARD of the Thompson/Center Contender case,
which was recently decided by the Supremes.  Or the 1990 United States
vs. Verdugo-Urquidez case.  Judge Rehnquist, who authored the opinion
for the latter case, wrote that the term "the people" in the Second
Amendment means the same thing as it does in the First and Fourth
Amendments; it protects the right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear
arms.  He specifically stated that it does NOT refer to governmental
organizations, such as the National Guard.

   don
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:21:05 GMT
Organization: The Cat Factory

In article <1992Aug19.033805.4527@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
}In article <Bt75t9.B4L@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
}>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
}>>     Laws regarding licensing and registering of automobile only apply with
}>>regard to their use on private property.  There are no laws (or very, very
}>>few that never crop up) regarding the *ownership* of automobiles *or* their
}>>use on private property.
}>
}>Well, I'll stick my neck out and claim that California requires you 
}>register all cars, even those on private property.   At least, recent
}>laws indicate that it is necessary to register even non-functioning
}>vehicles in the state of California.
}
}What's a "non-functioning vehicle"?  If I built my own car on my
}own property, and didn't intend to drive it, would the law say I
}must register it?

Only if you plan to operate it on public property.  However, once it has
been so registered, it will cost you $5/year to keep it as a non-operated
vehicle.  This allows you to keep your license plate.  If you want to
operate it again, you have 20 days to get it smogged and re-registered.

I know because I've had a '70 Opel GT sitting under a car cover in my back
yard for some time.  I haven't had time to drive it, or work on it, so I
saw no point in registering, insuring and smogging it.  For $5/year it
remains a car instead of a pile of junk that looks like a car (legally,
that is).

BTW, anyone want to buy a '70 Opel GT?  It's a classic, but I have too
many other distractions to play with these days.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: No Knocks
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:12:08 GMT

In article <Bt8z89.KFv@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>The man deserves a medal.  The perp was armed with a 9mm, if
>memory serves, and Brown fortunately had a .45 handy.

Jeff Cooper would've been proud. 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:07:58 GMT

In article <5711@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

}Hm.  Interesting thought:  anyone here read "Final Exit?"  Does it
}discuss with-gun suicide?  Does it recommend it, or recommend against it?

Don't know.  I recommend against it.  You're too likely to survive.

A suicide attempt with a firearm will almost certainly damage you
severely.  However, there's _no_ guarantee it will kill you.

When I worked at the SPC I heard of a case where a man tried to kill
himself by putting a double-barreled shotgun under his chin and pulling
the triggers.  Result:  He wound up suing some state institution or other
in an attempt to get them to pay for reconstructing the lower half of his
face.

I met a woman once who'd tried to kill herself by putting a handgun to her
temple and pulling the trigger.  She succeeded in doing a fair frontal
lobotomy on herself and now sees life from a much calmer perspective.

If I ever opt for suicide, I'll probably use the old "vacuum cleaner hose
from the exhaust pipe to the back window of the car" trick.  No muss, no
fuss and _very_ effective.  Almost as good, if you don't have a car, is a
charcoal fire in an enclosed space (e.g.:  A barbecue in the bedroom).

Kids, don't try this at home.  It _will_ kill you.


The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:13:29 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) queries:
>> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) scribbles:
>>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>>     Laws regarding licensing and registering of automobile only apply with
>>>regard to their use on private property.  ...
>>...I'll ... claim that California requires you register all cars, even 
>>those on private property.   ...
>What's a "non-functioning vehicle"?  If I built my own car on my
>own property, and didn't intend to drive it...

Well, I'm not an expert on the law, but...

If you operate the car on your own property always and never enter public
land, you could probably get away with not registering it.  However, if
you or the owner you bought it from had it registered as legal car once
and the car might someday in the future drive on a public road, I *think*
(i.e. from my poor understanding of the law that I'm not quoting) you are
required by the State of California to pay a yearly registration fee on
the car.  Now if you can build a car on your property and operate it on
your property, but the police raid your place and find an operational
and unregistered car which you can't actually prove you never intended
to operate on public roads...  Yeah, OK, so I'm paranoid, too...  :-)

BTW, as someone pointed out, the law does seem to be a bit vague about
junk yards.

I believe (based again on no references) that the law was passed because
of the number of cars that would go unregistered for several years and
then the owner would attempt to register it.  California has strict
penalities for failing to register (which I've heard includes paying the
registration fee for those years that you missed), and this law may
have been passed so people could have a legal (easy to prove) way to
indicate that they are storing the car and don't wish to pay the extreme
yearly registration fee.  I would guess that enforcement of this law is
only actually done if an owner attempts to register a vehicle that has
more than a years lapse in its registration fees and he doesn't have
the non-operational license for that time.

Where does this fit in with guns?  Well, the original posting was 
regarding licensing vehicles and I just piped up, so excuse me, and
back to your original string...

Mark "maybe I can register a gun as non-operational..." Runyan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 03:48:21 GMT

In <92Aug22.055354edt.177@smoke.cs.toronto.edu> quoctp@cs.toronto.edu writes:

>In the constitution of the U.S., the Fifth Amendment states that
>no person can be deprived of his/her property without "due process
>of law". Does this mean that a government (federal, state or city)
>can pass a law, then can deprive someone of his/her property by using that
>law? (I have gun confiscations in mind). Does passing a law saying that you
>have to destroy something that you currently own, without compensation
>violate this Amendment?

	Technically, no.  The making of the law can be easily construed to
have provided "due process."  On the other hand, there is that nasty latin
phrase of "ex post facto," or after the fact.  Until now it's been used to
prevent the same thing you are thinking of, but has never (that I know of)
been used in appealing a gun ban.  Perhaps it's time it is.

	Any legal eagles out there know the details?  I had a wierd
thought: all we need to do is find one lawyer who believes in the RKBA
and is willing to live on a modest salary.  How many NRA and tpg members
would donate $5/year to keeping him fighting in the courts?  If IBM and
Apple can support lawyers, can't we as a collective support just one?

	Ah, but the support staff would cost a minor fortune.  Still, it
is perhaps something worth thinking about.

<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: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: UFO "October Surprise" and USA TAKEOVER?!
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:30:35 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

In article <OTTO.92Aug12155011@tukki.jyu.fi>, otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) writes:
> In article <1992Aug6.192350.27305@clpd.kodak.com> fischer@li.serum.kodak.com (Chris Fischer (x39613)) writes:
>    In article <1992Aug6.143155.25460@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>    >In article <8B91oB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> garys@bluemoon.rn.com (Gary Stollman) writes:
>    [gun comments from Gary's clone]
>    >In waht way are Canadians Germans UKers and Frenchman less "free"
>    >than americans.
> 
>    To start with, they are not free to carry guns.
> 
> Nor are we free to drive down the freeway in the wrong direction.
> It's all the matter of what is percieved as too dangerous to be allowed.
> 
> I've never felt the need to carry a gun (even though I've been in some pretty
> tight spots), and I'm glad I live in a society where I don't have to.
> 
> The fact that yearly much more people in the United States get killed by
> guns than in Europe of course has nothing to do with gun control, right ?

It might have something to do with the fact that the population od the
US is greater than the population of Europe.

> -- 
>    /* * * Otto J. Makela <otto@jyu.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
>   /* Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (V.32bis/USR-HST,24h/d) */
>  /* Mail: Kauppakatu 1B18/SF-40100 Jyvaskyla/Finland, ICBM: 62.14N25.44E */
> /* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns