HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No Difference Between the Parties, Part 3
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:33:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct6.221529.27659@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
> Here is a summary by party of the GOA ratings of all House of Representatives
> candidates in the 1992 elections:

> Total of A+, A, A- :  152 Republicans,  49 Democrats.
> Total of F+, F, F- :   22 Republicans, 117 Democrats.
> Total of D+, D, D- :   12 Republicans,  24 Democrats.

> Seems to be a difference between the parties.

Are you truly such a single-issue voter?

Democrats and Republicans BOTH want chunks of our individual liberties.
They just want different chunks.

Show me a similar rating breakdown on the issues of personal privacy,
religious freedom, censorship of adult materials, or equal rights for
all non-criminal citizens.

Statists are statists.  The difference between the Democrats and the
Republicans is a lot like the difference between Hitler and Stalin:
one tyrant was Russian, and the other one wasn't.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense (what should I carry ?)
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:27:27 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <4400257@iftccu.boeing.com> bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
...
[ Stuff about having attended Ayoob's course being a good thing if you ever
have to go to trial for a justified shooting...]

But is it, really? Let me, in the cause of intellectual inquiry, assume the
role of _advocatus diaboli_ -- er, I mean state prosecutor:

"And so you see, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this mad-dog killer that
sits before you and who wilfully murdered the poor, disadvantaged victim
who was searching his house at 3 AM for some edible scraps is a TRAINED
KILLER. By his own admission, he attended a gun-fighting school run by that
well-known paranoid, Massad Ayoob--the same Massad Ayoob whom you just
heard admit has testified on behalf of his students in no less than 387
shoothing trials THIS YEAR ALONE.

"Clearly, attending what we can only call "Massad Ayoob's School of Death"
PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused was obsessed with guns
and killing, and was only waiting for a chance to blow away a poor
disadvantaged individual. Consider how meticulously the accused has kept
his notes--in a bank safety deposit box, no less. Surely this is an
indication of an obsessed and paranoid mentality.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, society will only be safe if we lock
away all the graduates of this insidious Academy of Assassins. I urge you
to throw this guy in jail and lose the key."

[ exit prosecutor ]




-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk ("Russell E. Whitaker")
From: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Where handguns are banned (was handguns and long guns)
Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 03:59:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.160748.2431@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
)In article <1992Oct5.232440.23917@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
)
)>Naturally, handguns are forbidden in Chicago.
)
)Naturally.  They don't call it C(r)ook County for nuthin'.

Interestingly, Cook County doesn't have a ban, though a number of the
towns within have. Generally the places with the highest crime rates pass
gun control laws, and (of course) the Council members  (who pass the laws)
are exempted from them... e.g Chicago, Morton Grove, and Wilmette.

)>On the other hand, rifles are bulky, difficulty to maneuver, require
)>both hands, and have far more power than is needed.  Weilding a good

)In such a case, why not use a shotgun with a barrel at the minimum
)legal length?

A lot of people do. A number of stores inside the city limits sell shotguns
(e.g. sportmart) and when I friend of mine went to get his they were
backordered by THREE months.

)You'd still have some of the problems with bulkiness,
)difficulty to maneuver, and so forth, but overpenetration wouldn't
)be as bad as a .30-06.  Or has C(r)ook County made shotguns illegal
)too?

The Chicago City Council (Crook central) recently passed a law banning a
number of "assault" rifles and shotguns, and giving the chief of police?
the authority to add more to the list. So, in a way, they have.
)
)Drew 
)--
)betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
)*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
)


-- 
             There's a fine line between clever and stupid.

technews@iitmax.iit.edu                           kadokev@harpo.iit.edu
                         My Employer Disagrees.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: 1992 Senate Races: No Contest
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 15:31:23 GMT

 
 >Clark L. Coleman listed senate races where there were differences between
 the candidates being pro or anti gun. 
 Clark forgot one senate race. In North Carolina Sanford(inc) vs Faircloth
 Mr. Sanford has voted anti gun and anti hunting every chance he had last 
 term. Although the GOA gave him an A rating the NRA gave him an F. I wonder
 if the GOA just uses their survey or do they check actual voting records. 
 Sanford seems to talk like he's on our side but when it comes time to vote
 he jumps right on the liberal bandwagon. Does anyone know how the GOA comes 
 up with their rating? 
  
Myron Petro
  NRA, USPSA 


 ***************************************************************

 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
 And are protected by the First Ammendment and guarnteed by the 
 Second.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Chicago Handgun Registration Freeze (was re: Handguns 'n' Long guns (Was: Re: Libertarians)
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:43:15 EDT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Oct6.160748.2431@guinness.idbsu.edu> 
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.232440.23917@iitmax.iit.edu>
>draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:

>>Naturally, handguns are forbidden in Chicago.

>Naturally.  They don't call it C(r)ook County for nuthin'.

As a, mercifully, if somewhat nostalgically erstwhile resident of the
above, I would be interested in finding out whether the de facto ban
caused by the Jane Burne registration freeze has ever been tried in
court, or used for prosecuting non-complying miscreants.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lydic@ka8lvz.uucp (lydic)
Subject: Re: Brady Bill dead for the year!!
Organization: organization
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:28:35 GMT

In article <3778@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe) writes:
>
>   Republicans were able to block the Brady Bill in the Senate.  Senator
>Joe Biden, sponser of the Brady Bill, has pronounced the bill dead!  It is
>suggested that you call your senator and thank him for his/her vote 
>against the bill.

   Which one - Metzenbaum or Glenn ?  (At least we may be rid of Glenn
   after the election.  

   -.. .

   John W. Lydic Jr              lydic@ka8lvz.cmhnet.org
   (In OHIO)

   "We live beyond our means, on other peoples dreams, and that's succeeding"
   Janis Ian 'Between the lines'
   ... -.-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:03:27 GMT

In article <2659@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.92Oct12165713@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>>	This statement is false. "Liberals" generally (but not always)
>>	favor such absurdities as the Brady bill; a "rule" which
>>	makes no sense and favors only the politically connected
>>	and criminals....people who need no favors over Ms. Average
>>	who wants to be able to defend herself against attack but
>>	often cannot because of "rules" that reserve the right
>>	of firearms ownership only to the rich/politically connected.
>
>If the gun grabbers and liberal do-gooders get their way, the only
>protection a woman will be allowed to carry is a condom.

	Yeah, but the real question is will they be able to carry
concealed?

	BTW, that's discrimination!  What about us men who want to
carry also!

:-)   <- For the humor impaired.

>
>-- 
>Tom Albrecht


				Steve
From: dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Leonard Levy, "Original Intent", etc.
Summary: whoops
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:38:19 GMT
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.


 With regard to my previous question.
 Mistake is  noted. Question is withdrawn.

 Musta been too much pizza.
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Sources of criminals' guns; was (Re: Lies and statistics)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:57:15 GMT

In article <199210141632.AA03090@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> rob@spot.Colorado.EDU (Rob Cuthbertson) writes:
>#"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) surveyed 471
>#carreer criminals in its recently released "Protecting America, Yes"
>#study and found that only 7% of guns used in violent crimes are
>#purchased from retail dealers.
># [ ... ] 

>But there's a bias to the data collection here -- BATF surveyed 471 of the
>criminals who get caught.  Most sophomore sociology students could tell you 
>that the persons found in prison cells do not represent a random sample of 
>the persons breaking the law.  Without better surveying techniques, it is
>not valid to claim that captured/convicted criminals obtain their guns in 
>the same manner as those who are not captured/convicted.

However, a reasonable (though unproven) hypothesis would be that
captured/convicted criminals are more likely to buy their guns through
a legal dealer: Guns purchased in this way are fairly easy to trace and
supposedly more expensive than guns on the black market. Therefore, buying
a gun in this way, in order to commit a crime, is fairly stupid. By 
definition, captured criminals are more likely to do something stupid...

                                                       Frank Crary
                                                       CU Boulder


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Freaks And Self-Defense
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 16:48:59 GMT

In article <1bja6gINNsvr@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Eric Oppen) writes:
>>Wasn't there a case recently where some freak started shooting in a 
>>restaurant, and someone shot back, preventing another mass execution
>>(the type that the media loves)?
>
>I believe that it was in Anniston, Alabama.  I don't know the details, but
>apparently several people in the restaurant were legally carrying firearms,
>and the nut died the death all such nuts should die.

What I remember is that there were a pair of armed robbers whose modus
operandi was to herd everyone into the restaurant freezer, empty the till
and call the police later, telling them that the robbery victims were in
the freezer.  Of course, if they had an accident before calling the police,
some of those people could have frozen to death.  And, being armed robbers,
there was always the chance that someone could be hurt.

So, they hit this restaurant and one of the customers happened to be
carrying legally.  He hid under the table, they herded most of the
customers towards the freezer.  One of the robbers nade a sweep through
the restaurant, discovered our hero and received a couple .45 slugs in
the chest for his trouble.  The other robber (there were definitely 2,
possibly 3) fired at the armed citizen, was wounded for his trouble.

Some people might say that the customer wasn't justified in using lethal
force; personally, I agree with what he did.  After the incident, there
was little or no press coverage (presumably since it was a positive
example of gun use).

BTW, the San Jose Mercury News has printed a couple nice, balanced
articles about guns recently.  One was an unbiased view of anti-Brady
protestors barred from entering the SJPD building to protest against
the idea of freeing the bill.  The other pointed out that guns have
kept looters at bay in the area of Florida stricken by the recent
hurricane.  So, at least SOME reporters are real, unbiased reporters!

    don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "Democracy is the theory that the people
        know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
                -- H.L. Mencken
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ayr@gtech.com (Aleksey Y. Romanov)
Subject: statistics
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich RI
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:13:22 GMT



Sorry, for reposting a question. Bad I hope now it is more clear:

What percentage of guns used in crimes were legally purchased and used
in the crime either by their legal owners or some other party (like an
adult family member or a store employee) who had legal access to them?

If an "all crimes" figure is not available (or if the following
figures are also easily available), are there similar statistics for
crimes where shots were fired and/or victims were wounded or killed?

For illegally-owned guns used in crime, is there a breakdown of how
they were obtained (e.g., stolen from homes, smuggled, purchased from
a store)?



-- 
Aleksey Y. Romanov

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are entirely my own and do not
necessary reflect those of my employer or anyone else
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mauser@INTERCON.COM (Richard Chandler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:10:32 GMT

> From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
> I have said over and over again that it protects the right of citizens to
> defend themselves from foreign attack through an armed militia.  I have
> speculated that an attempt by the federal government to disarm the National
> Guard might be ruled unconstitutional under the 2nd.  I hope that you see
> and remember it this time.

Oh, that's rich!  So the Second Amendment was put in there to protect the 
right of the government to arm the army?  And the States refused to ratify 
the Constitution without it!!  I'm sorry, that has to be one of the most 
hilarious misreadings of the Second I've ever seen.  Say, where does it say 
"foreign attack"?  And don't tell me that the National Guard isn't part of 
the Federal Army, the Governer of Louisiana tried to say that before Desert 
Storm and the Supreme Court told him to get stuffed.

> Ok, let me explain again.  The amendment *asserts* the RKBA.  It presupposes
> that the RKBA is necessary to maintain a well-regulated militia.  Here is
> the definition of the "Second Amendment" from the 2nd edition of the Random
> House Unabridged Dictionary of the English language:  "an amendment to the 
> U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights,
> guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms as necessary to maintain a 
> state militia."  Oops! Where did they get the idea that it was a "state"
> militia?  

Ah, so dictionarys carry more authority than the Constitution or the Supreme 
Court.  And they're proof against errors.  Of course the editors have no 
agendas to push.  Why, I remember reading a 1932 edition of Websters that 
defined Masturbation as "Self-pollution" so it MUST be true. :-)

I bet you believe there's no bias in Textbooks either.
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Armed Weapons
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:03:15 GMT

>  I feel John's right to have a weapon is good, but I would like to
>see that street punks like the one's that entered his store never get
>their hands on a gun... although outlawing weapons really won't work,

I laudable sentiment with which most of us would agree. It is however
impossible to accomplish. The weapons necassary for the perpetration of
crime (especially on an un armed victim) are simply too easy to
manufacture. Even if all smuggling were stopped (like the smuggling of
drugs) all criminals could be supplied by a few small shops and many
could make their own. Your comment below indicates that you understand
this but I just thought I would point it out as others may not.

>mostly because those we are trying to take the weapons from will still
>manage to get weapons.  I guess what I feel is the correct action, is
>that before people just walk home with a gun, that they are trained in
>it's use, know how to use it, and know it's dangers... This would

This would actually be a good idea if the government was unable to use
it to deny RKBA to law abiding citizens as has been done in at least
one eastern state (which one was it guys and gals, MA, PA, NJ...?

>protect people from themselves! (Hopefully... there are still those
>people who never realize that if it's raining they should wear a
>raincoat or umbrella <grin>)

Unfortunately true. These same folks end up killing scores of people
on our highways every year. Fortunately the voluntary training efforts
of the NRA and others has significantly reduced the already low
firearms accident rates.

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Pepsi supporting anti RKBA?
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:17:31 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

A friend of mine told me that Pepsi Cola recently donated a large
amount of money to the anti RKBA cause. Does anyone know anything about
this? Maybe its time to start drinking Coke.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:05:15 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Oct6170742@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

> >>>>> On Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:02:44 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
> > (Tim Lambert) writes:
> >>(21
> 
> > Huh!?  19 degrees of freedom!  That's enough to least-square fit an elephant!
> 
> Explain to us how 19 df allow you to "fit an elephant".

Well, since you haven't seen this "proof" before, go to your library and look
up "Least Square Fitting of an Elephant", by James Wel (U. of Delaware),
CHEMTECH, Feb 1975, pg 128.

It's really quite humorous! ;-)  A "good" fit to the elephant requires
about 30 terms, but you can do quite well with 20 degrees of freedom.

> >> data values less two fitted parameters) in the Chi square statistic.
> >> Should I have use 18 df?
> 
> > I suspect you're drawing meaningless conclusions from your pseudo-
> > scientific method...
> 
> Your suspicions are incorrect.

Oh!  Now *this* is convincing evidence....

-- 
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
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: LP in St Louis
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:46:38 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


I've been in contact with LPHQ in Washington.  They confirmed both
stories.  The CSPAN interview was conducted with Marrou participating
by telephone instead of on camera as had been originally planned.  He
had a few choice words concerning the St Louis Police.
 
They went no farther than to confirm the beating story, no other
details.  Someone may be planning legal action.

Frank Ney
 .sig down for repairs
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:25:50 EDT
From: Dave Shaffer <DCS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Carry around the country (new)

In article <RTARAZ.92Oct12110535@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>, rtaraz@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Ramin
Taraz) says:

>A while ago I asked about a way to carry my pistol around the country
>on my motorcyle.

...some stuff deleted...

>My only reason to carry my piston with me was for protection reasons,
                            ======
Great typo.

Have you talked to your motorcycle mechanic about this?

Sorry, couldn't resist!       - Dave
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:53:42 GMT

In article <lairdb.718487640@crash>, lairdb@crash.cts.com
(Laird P. Broadfield) writes:

> In <1992Oct4.220633.11148@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
> >The question is, did *we* do it, or did a group of bureaucrats do it?
> >Are these rules the _Will_of_the_People?  Or has the State assumed
> >this power, above and beyond the will of the people?
> 
> If you'll pardon me quoting myself from another article:
> 
> $lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
> $>John wrote: 
> $>Judging by how many people ignore traffic laws, the entity called government
> $>is not very responsive to the will of the people.  So what else is new?
> $
> $Nonsense.  The entity called government has done exactly what the people
> $told it to do.  The fact that most of them are too lazy to vote their

Perhaps more correctly, the goverment has done whatever the people
have failed to tell it *not* to do.

> $share, too irresponsible to consider the issues involved, and so forth,
> $is not material.  OTOH, the fact that the government thus elected has
> $noticed this, and begun to abuse this lack of oversight bringing us

Correct.  Time for some oversight....

> $closer and closer to a fascist/socialist state de facto under a 
> $capitalist de jure system, just brings us individual citizens
> $closer to either fleeing (where to?) or to the second and third boxes.

-- 
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