HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Ban the Killer of 300,000
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:58:06 GMT

In article <archer.101@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.041125.16249@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU
> (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Jul16.205709.10363@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
  >andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> >>
> >>There are very few good reasons to shoot to kill, and none come up in
> >>civilian use.  (Maybe there are some in judicial or military use, but
> >>that's not relevant in this discussion.)  There are plenty of good
> >>reasons to use potentially deadly force to STOP someone.  Stopping
> >>them may well result in their death, but that wasn't the purpose,
> >>stopping them was.
> >>
> >>Think about the differences between shoot to kill and shoot to stop
> >>and why they're relevant.
> >>
> 
> >Agreed, but how many of the MILLIONS of gun owners in the US have the training
> >to know the difference and the skill to stop without killing in a wide 
> >variety of situations with any or all of their weapons. Not many I guess.
> 
> >DJ...
> 
> You miss the point.  Any attempt to "stop without killing" is not 
> recommended.  It takes too much skill, and luck is too much of a factor.  If 
> one needs to use potential deadly force, one shoots to stop.  If the perp 
> survives, lucky him.  If he dies, I won't shed any tears.

I think the real point Andy was making was a legal interpretation.  If you
shoot a guy in the leg, his attorney can claim you didn't feel threatened;
If you felt threatened, you would have shot him in the vitals.  If you "shoot
to kill", you may have the same legal trouble.  If you "shoot to stop", you
were merely protecting yourself;  If he dies as a result, it wasn't your main
intent, it's just a by-product.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:07:33 GMT

uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:

>	Allow me to play devil's advocate here.  The fact that
>	the Brady Bill is flawed; does not preclude the drafting
>	of waiting-period legislation without many of the problems.
>	There is no reason that a Brady-II could not be drafted
>	that required a background check, provided funding and 
>	federal assistance, closed the loophole that would allow
>	an anti-gun police chief to arbitrarily freeze gun transfers,
>	created an appeals process, and protected police from
>	liability.

 You have described Staggers here, except the wait in Staggers is
minutes instead of days. The Brady folks opposed Staggers vehemently
becuase the wait was minutes rather than days or weeks. Since Staggers
would have done what they claimed to want and their own bill would
not, why did they oppose it?

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

        Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:44:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory

[ Pro-Waiting-Period comments deleted ]

>I think we need to get back on track and punish criminals not guns.
>If someone commits a crime, punish that person. If that person 
>used a  gun to commit the crime add 10 un-paroleable years to
>the sentence.

Jeff;

This seems inconsistent with your support for waiting periods. Women
especially often need a gun RIGHT NOW as has pointed out in this forum
previously. I agree that waiting till you need it is not prudent but
it doesn't seem like a capital offense. A waiting period does turn it
into a capital offense however.

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: smpod@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: 2ndAm and militias
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Date: 21 Jul 1992 15:13 EDT  

In article <1427@tnc.UUCP>, m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes...
>In article <14JUL199215534346@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
>>m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes...
>>>smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
>>Sometimes it takes a sacrificial lamb or two to advance any cause, esp.
>>liberty.
> 
> 
>True.  But, I'd like to pick the time and place of said 'sacrifice,'
>should it become truly necessary, for maximum effect.    B-)

Understand.

>There are a few people around the edges of the unit with full auto
>(legal) that regularly scrimmage against NG/Reserve units and do
>pretty well.  We are currently discussing if we will join them or if
>they will join us.

Good lucK!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:05:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.205424.26710@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger) writes:
>Actually, California started with a 3-day waiting period that was
>extended to 5 days, then to 7 days and now 15 days.

I stand corrected.  So the slimeball politicos got that
warm-fuzzy-feel-good legislation passed/upped three times
instead of two.

Drew 
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 05:29:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.134126.23113@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> trytten@ahmeek.cps.msu.edu (Deborah Trytten) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.050335.6275@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>|> The Presbyterians think it is morally wrong for a victim to take
>|> an attacker's life under ANY circumstances.
>
>You might want to check your sources a bit more carefully.  My
>parents are Presbyterians, and the church they attend believes no such
>thing. 

As the representative of the Presbyterian Church USA, Rev. Young
(director of their Criminal Justice Program) testified before Congress
in 1985:

"The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA has declared in the
context of handgun control and in many other contexts, that it is
opposed to 'the killing of anyone, anywhere, for any reason'."

Of course, if your parents have become spokesmen for the Presbyterian
Church USA since 1985 then I will retract my statements.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
From: dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Call off the dogs. was Re:Waiting periods for guns and domestic violenc
Summary: What is an Ignorant person when they insist they are not?
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:56:21 GMT
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.



slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:

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


When a person makes statements such as this, you can usually attribute it to
ignorance. When they stand and defend it, to what can that be attributed?

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Don Thompson                        |   I may be opinionated, but at least
Comshare Inc. dont@execu.execu.com  |   my opinions are my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: the archive
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:14:41 GMT
Distribution: usa

I need to know to whom I should send email concerning the
RKBA FTP archive (archive.cis.ohio-state.edu).

At least two articles I posted on here have been made
available on the archive.  I did not send either of them.
I don't mind their use in this manner; but I think at least
one (the KESTON <sic> file, which is my critique of the
Cleveland 6-1 "study") needs to be edited and rewritten
before it is made available from the archive.

Also, I if it has not already been done, I had a raw data
analysis of the Seattle 43-1 study that I'd be willing to
re-do in some quasi-professional form and submit.

Thanks,

Robert K.

btw.  its KESTEN, not KESTON.
From: glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Stop
Date: 22 Jul 92 11:37:49 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Jul21.221703.14008@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

> While I found lots of people who talked about "shoot to kill" and
> insisted that "shoot to kill" was appropriate and that "shoot to stop"
> was just wrong, I also found out that their use of "shoot to kill"
> wasn't consistent with that label; they meant "shoot to stop".  
> 
> They understood that the use of deadly force to stop was appropriate
> only when failure to stop someone would likely result in immediate
> death or grave bodily harm.  Their proposed use in those situations
> was consistent with "shoot to stop", not "shoot to kill".
> 
> 
> It doesn't take much training to shoot to stop; center of mass is
> the target.

The most effective way of putting a person down with a firearm with the minimum 
of lethal force (ie. a single shot) is to aim for the pelvic area.  A solid strike
in this region *should* dump your assailant on his ass with a broken pelvis, yet
not kill him.  Unfortunately, it may not prevent him from using a firearm on
you (though locamotion is virtually impossible, and if he survives, you could
even face a cival lawsuit.  the brainshot is a difficult one to undertake while 
in fear for your life, but if correctly executed, will permanently solve HIS
problem.

But lets assume you fail to kill him with a brainshot or he is lucky you went
for the pelvis,you could find the state-prosecutor asking why you shot him
where you did.  Your reply,obviously that, that you shot him there just to stop
him.*BUT* you could soon face the accusation that because you had all that time
to decide where you were going to shoot him, you had time to attempt to flee,
or that you where obviously NOT in IMMEDIATE life-threatening danger.

My conclusion, you should definitely shoot to kill.

Gary
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Docs versus riflemen
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:34:42 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

In article <1992Jul21.051052.18543@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>
>Having been to both the US and Switzerland I must say that I feel much safer
>in Switzerland.

Anyone who knows anything would.  I would also feel much safer in London
than in Belfast, despite the fact that those cities have similarly sctrict
gun laws.  The laws aren't the problem.

>Both populations (generally) are armed so it's not just the
>fact that guns exist in the hands of the population that makes the difference.

Precisely what the NRA and other RKBA'ers have been saying.  It's the social
and economic conditions in the US that are the cause of our problems, not
the guns.  The US enjoyed a fairly low crime rate, despite being an
armed society, for most of its existence.  The rates of non-gun-related
crime are much higher in the states as well.

>But the 2nd got extended from a 'security of a free State' to the security
>of an individual (Don't tell me the individual IS the state, we'll agree to
>disagree).

I won't tell you that, but I will tell you that the freedom and
security of a state are nothing more than the freedom and security
enjoyed by its individuals.  That's what the U.S. constitution is all
about.  How could it be otherwise?  How could a state be free and
secure, but not the individuals within it?

>The RIGHT! of the individual to do what he wants and to use his
>firearm to back it up. If what the individual wants is out of line with the
>majority and the laws then he is called a 'criminal'. 

I have never seen anyone in TPG or elsewhere claim that an individual
has a "right" to do whatever he wants with a gun.  He must, in his
actions, respect the rights of others.  Failing to do that is what
makes one a criminal; the "majority" and the "laws" are merely
reflections of this (or should be).

More specifically, every individual has a right to self-defense.  It
therefore follows that he has a right to possess the tools of
self-defense.  Denying innocent people the ability to defend themselves
because of what certain others have done is, in my opinion, morally
wrong.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
From: valluri@cco.caltech.edu (Siddhartha Valluri)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: heard this on the news.
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:38:35 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena


 I heard this on the news yesterday.

Willie Williams (New LA Police Chief) was the first person

  in **** 25 Years **** to be issued a concealed carry permit

    in LA county.            


Boy! i hadn't figured it was THAT tough to get a permit.

       

-- 
##   ...And Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap                             ##
##                                             Sid Valluri          ##
##                                    Department of Redundancy Dept.##
##                                              CALTECH             ##

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 19:50:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.201637.19089@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
->
->The operation is being run privately due to a Washington State law
-                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-	By *whom*?  Something here stinks to high heaven.

	It does, however, sound like a wonderfully simple plan to 
   obtain firearms that are not registered to you.  To what use 
   those firearms will be put after being "destroyed" is another 
   matter entirely.  Just to be on the safe side, bring along a 
   4473 and ask them to fill it out.  If they balk, that's a good 
   indication that you should try to sell the weapon elsewhere.  
   After all, gun-grabbers wouldn't oppose firearm registration.  

	[ No smiley ... unfortunately. ]  

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "Don't dial 911;    
 kossack@rice.edu  |   Dial M1911A and let it ring seven times." 
  +1 713 240 2073  |         -- sybok@m37-332-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:54:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.234512.4775@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:


>Here in the Australian State of Victoria we have random breath testing for
>car drivers. The police set up a road block and breath test drivers for a
>blood alcohol level less than .05. When this was introduced there were some
>protests from a few civil liberatarians but most objections came from hotelliers
>and other sellers of alcohol. The result now, some years later, is a change
>in attitude towards drink diving and a much reduced road toll. A great community
>and personal benefit in road safety at the cost of a few minutes hassle perhaps
>a couple of times a year.
>Most t.p.g. posters would like to see the criminal element in society disarmed,
>so how would "random gun checks" be received in US states? I know some would
>say this infringes some right but if you are a law-abiding citizen with a duly
>registered firearm then surely this hassle would be a small price to pay to
>disarm criminals. This would also make GUN CONTROL for law abiding citizens
>unnecessary.

>DJ...

There are a number of places that use the random stop system to deal with 
DWI's here in the United States.  Everytime it starts up there is an 
outcry.  You see, you just can seem to getg away from that darn Bill of 
Rights, which prohibits search without warrant.  We do have a probably cause 
doctrine that allows breathalyzers for people seen "weaving" or giving other 
indication of intoxication.

The idea that agents of the state could stop and search at random for ANY 
reason makes my skin crawl, and I will go to jail before I will put up with 
it.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: simnet@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Mark R Poulson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Summary: More drawbacks...
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:06:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

In article <1992Jul21.192440.24050@iitmax.iit.edu>, draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.125305.2020@tc.fluke.COM> ness@tc.fluke.COM (Jerry Ness)
> writes:
> >I have never ever needed to buy a gun of any kind RIGHT NOW!!
> >A lengthy waiting period to do a background check or just for 
> >a 'cooling off' period would certainly not infringe on my rights
> >or the rights of anyone I know. 
> >
> >Plan ahead.

Good story about how a person's gun was siezed as evidence.

> 
> Waiting periods harm the gun show industry.

Also, they make it harder to buy guns cheap. For some reason, all the local
gun shops have rather high prices. I would rather go to Wenatchee or Bellingham
because their prices are 15% lower than the local stores. With a waiting period,
I'm going to have to make two trips to the store. For me, its not worth it to
make a special 4 hour trip to save 75 bucks. I'd rather be able to stop by
and buy what I want when I happen to be vacationing near there. Yes I could use
one of the local FFL guys to get what I want cheaply, by they have been slow
in my experience and I'd rather support a complete gunshop.

> >Washington state seems to be missing something in their 'waiting'
> >period gun laws. A couple of years ago I decided to purchase a
> >new black powder revolver. The revolver I chose is a Ruger Old
> >Army .44 cal. There is NO waiting period for a black powder firearm
> >in Washington. I bought the revolver, powder, bullets and primers
> >and just took them home with me. This does not make any sense.
> >Does the law think a revolver of this type can't hurt anybody??

...or the baseball bat, or knife, or lawn darts, or oh please!

The reasoning, I think, stems from lack of Federal restriction. Black powder
firearms are one of the few kinds you can buy through the mail with no hassle.
Since this is possible, it would be stupid to make local merchants impose a
waiting period for these when you could get it Priority Mail in a day or two.

I think Jerry has a very important point though -- PLAN AHEAD. IMHO, there
is simply no excuse (except maybe severe financial problems) to not have
the proper security/survival/defense tools that you need before you need them.
An emergency situation is not the time to procure and learn how to use your
survival tools! But then, laws should help people that are naive or ignorant,
not hinder them.

		Mark

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: Guns
Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 05:27:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.220553.23466@usho93.hou281.chevron.com> tjviv@usmi02.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
)
)  Once again, I implore everyone to edit the newsgroups line of your
)submission.  If you have nothing to say about Clinton's or Bush's gun
)policies, why the hell are you posting them to that board???
)
)   And finally, why can't both sides learn to get along?  Guns are a
)right that people have gotten used to.  Just as when we tried to outlaw
)alcohol, too few people would believe in a NO GUNS law to make it
)effective.  I don't personally use a gun, but I sure like the idea that
)any criminal breaking into my house knows I probably have one (I live in
)West Texas).  I don't think the founding fathers knew what the world
)would be like now, but I think that they thought that arming the people
)was a good thing (for whatever that matters).

	The problem is, what most people advocate is GIVING IN, not
compromise. A compromise is where the PRO-GUN people give the ANTI-GUN
people something they want, and the ANTI-GUN people give the PRO-GUN
people something. What many people advocate as COMPROMISE is CONCESSION.
)
  I don't know what the gun people find so offensive about a waiting
)period.  So what if it hardly ever works.  I can sure think of more
)scenarios where it saves lives than where some innocent person's life is
)harmed.  Why is it so important that some guy might not be able to
)compete in a stupid mother****** gun tournament.

This is exactly the attitude that gets waiting periods passed. The one item
that is always missed is what happens when a waiting period is passed, and
"what people find so offensive about a waiting period" is simple.

		PRIOR RESTRAINT. I object to having my rights restricted on
	the basis that I _might_ abuse them- the government is authorized to
	restrict rights AFTER an individual abuses them, not "just in case"

		THE EVER-GROWING WAITING PERIOD. California had a 7 day
	waiting period, and when they found that did not decrease deaths, they
	extended it to a 15 day wait... How long is too long? 1 month? 2?
	a year?
)
-- 
   If the opposite of "pro" is "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

technews@iitmax.iit.edu                           kadokev@harpo.iit.edu
                         My Employer Disagrees.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.flame