HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: case1@husc4.harvard.edu (John Case)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Flashlight bans discussusions in Detriot  (an
Date: 24 Dec 92 21:29:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <22960@drutx.ATT.COM> dfh@dwroll.att.com writes:
>>>The trial of four police officers who beat motorist Malice Green
>>>to death with MAG-LITE-type flashlights is going on in Detroit right
>>>now.  There has been some discussion of regulating such flashlights here.
>
>Has anyone heard of a case where someone was beaten with a MAG-LITE
>wielded by anyone *other* than a police officer?  Or are we just
>talking about regulating these things amongst the police force? (right!)
>
>Dave Haertig
>haertig@att.com

In the interests of accuracy, I would just like to note that the charges are
that *three* officers beat the motorist, and *one* sergeant allowed it to
happen while taking no active part.  The Wall Street Journal today reported 
that the charges against the sergeant were dismissed.

John Case
case1@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Shooting License
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:48:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.213228.28491@hydra.acs.ttu.edu>, mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey) writes:
|> I think that it is time that the states require a shooting license.

Why? Can you demonstrate some compelling need for this waste of money?
Considering how effective drivers licenses are in preventing auto
accidents I don't have much faith in this proposal.

|> The following are some possible characteristics of such a license:
|> 
|> 1.  It would NOT be required to purchase or own a gun.
|> 2.  It WOULD be required to use a gun.
|> 3.  Obtaining this license would be similar to obtaining a driver's
|>     license.
|> 4.  State training would be offered, as it is for driving a car.
|> 5.  Insurance would be required, as it is for driving a car.
|> 
|> Most states already require the safest gun users to have a license for
|> the use of a gun in the safest of uses:  hunting with the hunter safety

In the Peoples Republic of Illinois you are required only to purchase
the appropriate license and stamps. These funds are used to pay for
wildlife management programs. In other words hunting licenses are
simply a means of showing that a fee has been paid for the services
provided by the state game department.

Safty classes are available (I don't know whether they are provided
by the state or not) but they are only required for minors.

|> card.  Let's educate the idiots who use guns unsafely.

The stats I have seen indicate that this problem is small and
getting smaller thanks to the efforts of PRIVATE groups such as
the NRA who have been providing training for some time.

|> 
|> David McGaughey
|> 

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: BATF funding (Was: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Dec14.121100.24936@watson.ibm.com>
	<1992Dec17.205951.11843@ttinews.tti.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:23:07 GMT

<In article <1992Dec17.205951.11843@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
<   In article <1992Dec14.121100.24936@watson.ibm.com> mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps) writes:<

<   }  ... c: BATF already has plenty of power to enforce the law; its simply
<   }failing to do so!  ...

<   They have the _legal_ power.  What they lack is the funding to use it.  As
<   the show pointed out, the fault for that belongs to Congress.  They even
<   interviewed a (pro-gun) senator who helped kill BATF funding.  His
<   attitude was it kept them from harassing honest citizens.

	Given what BATF did to honest citizens in the 1970's, I for
	one don't find that an unusual or out of line attitude.

<   With something like 40 inspectors for the entire country, they aren't
<   going to be harassing much of anyone.

	Got a citation for this? 

	I find it just a teensy bit hard to believe that over 
	10% of the total BATF inspectors for the entire
	nation are *permanently* assigned to New Mexico, considering
	that the population of the entire state is about 1,600,000,
	or 00.64% of the US population...


<  } IOHO the show failed to stress that the failure is at the BATF.

<   They stressed the failure is at the congressional level for failing to
<   fund the BATF.

	Bosh. 
	
	They stressed that the "failure" is one of BATF to
	"get tough with those scofflaw FFL's"; it's almost as 
	if they had their conclusions drawn up before the
	"investigative reporting" even started.

	Imagine that....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey)
Subject: Shooting License
Organization: Texas Tech University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 21:32:28 GMT

I think that it is time that the states require a shooting license.
The following are some possible characteristics of such a license:

1.  It would NOT be required to purchase or own a gun.
2.  It WOULD be required to use a gun.
3.  Obtaining this license would be similar to obtaining a driver's
    license.
4.  State training would be offered, as it is for driving a car.
5.  Insurance would be required, as it is for driving a car.

Most states already require the safest gun users to have a license for
the use of a gun in the safest of uses:  hunting with the hunter safety
card.  Let's educate the idiots who use guns unsafely.

David McGaughey

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: grant@bluemoon.use.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: Kids and Guns
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 18:27:43 GMT

kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:

>I was just listening to the news and the newsbabe said that a kid
>gets killed by a gun every 3 hours.  I presume that she means in the
>US, since the info came from a US gungrabber group.

>That's 2,920 kids per year.  Anybody got any stats on this?  I don't
>believe it.

 If you include everyone up to and including 24 years old as "kids"
(they call them children, not kids...) then it isn't too far off.
That includes gangs killing each other, too.
-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.use.com)   /

        Good leaders being scarce, following yourself is allowed.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Time-Warner
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:18:11 GMT

In article <lk48gfINN5it@news.bbn.com>
gonzalez@bbn.com (Jim Gonzalez) writes:

>I don't think Time-Warner has changed its tune, as some here have suggested.
>It's been reported on the internet mailing last that the latest Batman,
>produced by Time-Warner's DC comics, has a story including Virginia gun
>runners and "assault weapons".

       I don't know whether Time-Warner has or has not changed it's
attitude, but this is certainly standard television fare.

       More to the point, though, is that TIME is owned by Time-Warner
but is not the same thing.  Corporate entities are more than capable
of holding two directly contradictory attitudes at the same time in
different places.

>It was today reported that the Virginia
>governor is distributing it to legislators, in support of his latest
>gun control proposals.

         And to think, the last time I said that politicians lived in a
fantasy world I thought I was exagerating.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 20:29:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.220837.7652@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com
(Mr. X) writes:
>>That whole discussion on rec.guns turns my stomach.  I should not have to
>>worry about being shot by a supposed law enforcement officer for openning
>>my glove box or getting out of my car after being pulled over.  IMHO, it
>>just supports my contention that on a daily basis, I am in more danger from
>>cops than any other group, and that situation is only getting worse.
>
>	You bet.  Cops are, by and large, out of control.  Look at the King
>	incident.  Sure, King was a piece of shit, and I do believe those
>	guys were indeed justified in whacking him to get him under control,
>	but after he was CLEARLY neutralized, they kept on and on with the
>	bludgeoning attacks on his person.  And to make it worse, they were
>	basically patted on the back for it.  I think they should all be in
>	Folsom, getting butt fucked by every African American in the place
>	that would be so inclined (or anyone else for that matter).

Hmmm.  I don't think that most cops are out of control.  Unfortunately, a
lot of them are but I think its unfair to over-generalize.  All my
experiences with police officers have been polite, cordial even...but then
I'm a white male who has only been pulled over for traffic violations
(1 speeding stop (no ticket was issued) and a handful of equipment violations
when I was younger).

Some cops do unacceptable things, such as confiscate peoples' property
(including legally owned firearms), damage property and bully people.
IMHO, all police departments should be held accountable by civilian
review boards and officers summarily dismissed (or tried in criminal
court, depending on what transpired).

The police provide the muscle that enforces the government's sometimes
asinine laws and, IMO, both (not just the police) need their leashes
yanked.

  donb, t.p.g's token pro-RKBA liberal
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Shooting License
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:50:13 GMT


In article <1992Dec22.213228.28491@hydra.acs.ttu.edu>
mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey) writes:

>
>I think that it is time that the states require a shooting license.
>The following are some possible characteristics of such a license:
>
>1.  It would NOT be required to purchase or own a gun.
>2.  It WOULD be required to use a gun.
>3.  Obtaining this license would be similar to obtaining a driver's
>    license.
>4.  State training would be offered, as it is for driving a car.
>5.  Insurance would be required, as it is for driving a car.

       Some problems.  First, the justification for driver's licenses
is that you are driving on public roads, and thus the state has the authority
to make certain rules about acitivty on those roads.  We already have
such a system in many states, where you are required to get a carry permit
in order to carry a gun in public.  (Tennessee doesn't even have that.)
What justification does the state have for ordering me to get a license to
discharge a firearm anywhere else than public property?
       State training, to the best of my knowledge, usually consists
primarily of Driver's Ed course in high schools.  The NRA has been pushing
for firearms safety courses in schools for years.  With no success.
       Tennessee's insurance rules are kind of goofy, but usually you
are not required to have insurance.  Most places only require insurance
if your driving on the public roads.  Where, again, is the justification
if I'm only going to shoot in a private range, that isn't there if I
buy, say, a nail gun or a chainsaw?

>Most states already require the safest gun users to have a license for
>the use of a gun in the safest of uses:  hunting with the hunter safety
>card.  Let's educate the idiots who use guns unsafely.

       As may or may not have been pointed out recently, despite the fact
that the news screams them at the top of their lungs, unsafe gun use isn't
even on par with unsafe poison use, or accidental drownings, and have been
declining.  I am fully in favor of letting the wrath of god (in the form of
the criminal legal system) fall on the heads of idiots who let their kids
play with loaded guns, but in the grand sceme of things your license
system isn't going to produce much benefit, and is going to cost a lot
of people a lot of time and money.  (Just think, maybe we can get accidental
deaths down from the barbaric 1400 a year to something civilized like
automobiles at 40,000 a year.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
From: gonzalez@bbn.com (Jim Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Time-Warner
Date: 30 Dec 1992 22:26:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: gonzalez@BBN.COM (Jim Gonzalez)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

I don't think Time-Warner has changed its tune, as some here have suggested.
It's been reported on the internet mailing last that the latest Batman, 
produced by Time-Warner's DC comics, has a story including Virginia gun
runners and "assault weapons".  It was today reported that the Virginia 
governor is distributing it to legislators, in support of his latest 
gun control proposals.

				    -Jim.
				    gonzalez@bbn.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Here's the problem
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:26:10 GMT

In article <1h8h1kINN5vt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Brandon D. Ray) writes:

> Washington not only smoked dope...he grew it.  He wrote numerous letters
> to people concerning his hemp crop, and it is quite clear from his 
> discussion of how he grew the stuff that he was growing stuff to smoke,
> not to make rope with.

And he probably wrote those letters on hemp paper.  ;->

It's not surprising that the WoD is a War on the Constitution...  The 
Constitution is printed on hemp....  "We gotta ban all those drug
related things!!"

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Tuesday, 29 Dec 1992 21:13:44 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Washington Post on Qat

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:27:52 -0500
From: Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Washington Post on Qat

[stuff deleted]
>      Unfortunately, the biases of the _Post_ seem to reflect, by and
> large, the biases of the local populace. Especially on gun control and
> drug policy.
 "stuff deleted"
Also, it depends on the locality of your local populace.  The urban
dwellers raised in their respective metropolitan "Hives" with omnipotent
gov't control, whose only exposure to firearms is the TV and Movie
portrayals and the nightly convenience store shooting reports tend to
have a different view than those raised in a more rural environment
where you know your neighbors and are taught self responsibility.
"stuff deleted"
-Seth

  Thank you Seth.
  We add:
  Stressed out ?
  Feel you're no longer in control ?
  Need a break ?  Be different.
                  Take up a shooting sport.
                  Get away from the city.  Enjoy wildlife and the out-
                  doors.
                  The benefits are many.

  Sorry, no references.  Perhaps someone else ?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rielly_s@apollo.hp.com (Stephen M. Rielly)
Subject: Boston Globe Editorial
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:22:42 GMT
Distribution: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

Reprinted without permission from Thursday 12/17/92:

Muder made easy

The absuridity of US attitudes and policy toward gun control is
no better illustrated than by the tragedy in Great Barrington 
this week. How many more murders will it rake for the goverment to
make it difficult to purchase easy-to-use rapid fire weapons.
Wayne Lo, an angry 18-year old, would have had more trouble buying 
a beer than he did a semiautomatic rifle in Pittsfield for $300.
Liquor is illegal at his age, but because he was from out of state,
he was able to aviod the background checks that normally take place
in Massachusetts.
What he got was the SKs rifle, a killing machine origanlly designed
for the Soviet military. While it does not fire its 10-shot clip 
automatically, as most modern military assault rifles do, every
pull of the trigger reloaded the gun for another shot. Lo killed
two people and wounded four others before he tossed the gun aside.
At the very least, the kilings ought to prompt the Massachusetts
Legislature to tighten the law so out-of-state gun buyers undergo
the same scrutiny as residents. But that is not enough. Lo might
have bought the weapon in his home state, Montana, where gun laws 
are less stringent.
A national policy is needed, but the powerful gun lobby resists 
ant attempt to tighten federal laws. The "right to bear arms" is
protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In the 18th century, when the Constitution was written, firearms
were expensive and difficult to reload. It is unlikely the 
Framers would have written the Second Amendment so loosely if
they had experience with the SKS.
Proponents of gun control want a federal law that would require all
purchasers of semiautomatic waepons to get ploice clearance first-
a sensible proposal that does not go far enough.
There is no place in a civilized society, outside of the military,
for military or quasi-military rifles. Let those that hunt animals
for sport be content with sporting weapons. Those that prey on 
human beings should not have their killing made easier by the laxness
of goverment.

End of Editorial



Not that I agree with one of the above, but I am amazed at the
ignorance that is demonstated in the above editorial.


-Steve
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A thought about fully automatic weapons...
Date: 24 Dec 1992 13:25:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Geoff Miller writes:

>That is not to say that full-auto fire and burst fire don't have a
>place in the military repertoire;  obviously, they do, but a full-auto
>capability does not automagically turn a mouse into a lion.  Training,
>experience and skill are the requirements.

	Full auto comes into its own when you have a good logistical
	supply line, and team support.  Even better if you can plan
	your lines of fire.

	For lone, untrained, undisciplined teams or individuals, it
	seems to be more trouble than its worth... a shotgun would throw
	more lead more rapidly and more accurately.  My opinion, only.

		Dave

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:09:28 GMT

In article <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.011711.24829@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> ...
>>I'll be happy to give Kelly $5 for every "free" appeal he pays for.
>>(An acquaintance was out $500 for only a brief excursion into that
>>process.)  Or, was Kelly referring to the chief's costs?  It is free
>>for him.  A denial that results in significant harm is no skin off his
>>back either.
>
>A friend of mine successfully appealed through the State Police by going
>to the local barracks and filling out a form.  He may have had to pay
>a $10 filing fee.  Who did your acquaintance give $500 to?
> ...

  In some states (many?) the appeal route from a police disapproval
is to a Judge of a Court.  In such cases it is common for a person
to want (i.e. feel that they need) an attorney to represent them
and to make sure that they don't screw up this appeal.  In the
cases I've heard about, an attorney fee of $500 is quite within
reason and less than $250 doesn't seem to occur.  It doesn't take
too much to move well above $500.

  It also seems to be the case that a person who can easily afford
to retain an attorney is less likely to need to do so.  (Surprise!)

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From:  (MJ)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Question for R. Boudrie
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:28:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

Weren't you a NYS resident and belong to FLPPC?  I've got 2 questions:
1)  I've read that with a NYS Carry Permit MA will grant some sort of
pistol permit.  Is this true?  What kind of permit is it? And where do I
apply?
2)  Were/Are you able to maintain/keep you NYS permit after moving?

This is a separate attempt to get you from rec.guns which has a slow
moderator.

MJ

[As if you didn't already know, my opinions are my own and not my
company's.]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Traveling with a gun
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:15:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.183250.25517@samba.oit.unc.edu> rdrob@med.unc.edu (Ricky Roberson) writes:
>Hi folks!  Just ran across this group, and hope I can find some help here.
>Can anyone tell me the *current* laws concerning carrying a weapon in a
>vehicle.  Does it vary from state to state?  I know it can't be concealed,
>but does it have to be registered?  Could you borrow your friend's gun and
>carry it on the seat next to you?  I'm going on a trip soon, and plan on
>carrying a handgun for personal protection.  I'll be traveling through
>several states.  

This will vary from state to state and from county to county and from city 
to city.  Any time you cross jurisdictional lines your ability to carry 
reasonable means of self-defense legally changes.  If you carry openly and 
are spotted by a cop, prepare to be arrested.  I strongly advise against 
open carry when my friends ask me.  Those in authority are frightened by the 
idea of people have the means to resist them.

Carry concealed, or don't carry at all.  That's how to avoid trouble.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: Effectiveness of gun control
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 20:22:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.190031.24169@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>From Vol. 325 No. 23 of the New England Journal of Medicine:
>
>"Effects of REstrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in
>	the District of Columbia"
>
>Homicides and suicides committed from 1968 through 1987 were classified 
>according to place of occurrence (within the District of Columbia or in
>adjacent metropolitan areas where the law did not apply), cause
>(homicide or suicide), mechanism of death (firearms or other means), 
>and time of occurrence (before or after the implementation of the law).
>The number of suicides and homicides was calculated for each month
>during the study period, and the differences between the mean monthly
>totals before and after the law went into effect were estimated.


What the hell kind of "science" looks at *numbers* of incidents for months
over a period of 19 years and not *rates*?
It just happens that in the period after the introduction of DC's gun ban,
the population of DC decreased, while that of the surrounding areas decreased.
So, we know absolutely NOTHING about the per capita gun incident rate from
this study. Aren't you suspicious about obvious trash like this getting
printed in the NEJM?

 -joe
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns