HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:59:29 -0500 
From: Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: info references needed

Hi, I'm writing a letter and need some references, and some information
about references for the following:

            In a  National Institute  of
            Justice study of ten state  prisons across the country  they
            found that 39% of the felons  surveyed had aborted at  least
            one crime because they believed that the intended victim was
            armed., and 57% agreed that "most criminals are more worried
            about meeting an  armed victim than  they are about  running
            into the police."
            (referenced in the 12/92 issue of Hundgun magazine)
----------need details on this, date, publisher (journal?), etc...

            observation that  more  women  are  arming  themselves  with
            defensive handguns,
----------I don't have any data to support this, does anyone know of any?

            Manual
            checks by law enforcement officals (during waiting periods) 
                 divert valuable resources
            away from  directly  combatting  crime  and  protecting  the
            citizentry
----------I thought I saw this somewhere in RKBA archives.  Any
supporting                 data?

                 Retail sales is not a siginificant contribution to  the
            number of handguns  used by criminals  (Profs. James  Wright
            and Peter  Rossi of the  University of Massachusetts).  
-----------need more info: date, publisher (journal?), etc? 

             The  Police    Foundation's  "Firearm  Abuse"
            (1977) found that only  2.1 percent of  handguns  traced  to
            all crime were less than a  month old. And a month is  twice
            as long as any state's waiting period.
------------what is "The Police Foundation?"  where was this published?

     If the purpose is to prevent criminals from  purchasing
            guns, then  it  is misguided.  Indeed,  a study  of  waiting
            periods by professors Joseph P.  Magaddino and  Marshall  H.
            Medoff of California  State University at  Long Beach  found
            them to   be totally useless  in curbing crime.  
------------need more info, date, publisher, etc.


If you know anyone who might know these things, please forward a copy of
this to them.

E-mail replies would be appreciated

-Seth

__________________________________________________________________________
"Why am I dangerous?...
                    ...because I'm right!"     -Rush Limbaugh

Seth Eliot                    Dept of Material Science and Engineering
                              Carnegie Mellon Univerity,   Pittsburgh, PA
ARPA    :eliot+@cmu.edu       |------------------------------------------
   or    se08+@andrew.cmu.edu |
Bitnet:  se08%andrew@cmccvb   |      
------------------------------|
From: bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Rights not Practiced, etc;
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:19:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


Either Saturday or Sunday, someone posted a msg requesting the 
source for the line:
     A RIGHT NOT ALLOWED TO BE PRACTICED IS NO RIGHT AT ALL; IT'S
     AN ILLUSION."

That line came from Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, in a
Jan 22 speech to the National Abortion Rights Action League
(NARAL) in Washington DC. Hmmmm. I wonder if Mitchell believes 
his own pap through and through, or just for abortion?
-- 
bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text: New Brady Bill
Date: 28 Jan 1993 03:03:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, pettengi@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill) says:

>What exactly does the following paragraph mean?
>Do you have to wait 10 days with a note from the Chief of Police 
>that you indeed need a handgun to protect yourself
>
>In article <1k3abtINNk8j@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Christopher J. Crobaugh,
>bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>>
>>        "(B) the transferee has presented to the transferor a 
>>    written statement, issued by the chief law enforcement officer 
>>    of the place of residence of the transferee during the 10-day 
>>    period ending on the date of the most recent proposal of such 
>>    transfer by the transferee, which states that the transferee 
>>    requires access to a handgun because of a threat to the life of 
>>    the transferee or of any member of the household of the 
>>    transferee; 
>>
>
The preceding paragraph seems to say that if you come in with a note
from the police that says you have reason to fear for your life, the 
waiting period is waived.  The phrase mentioning a 10 day period seems
to mean that this note must have been issued no more than 10 days prior to
the purchase of the gun.
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: A well-armed (and well-fed) society
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: talk
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:14:27 GMT

In article <NELSON.93Jan21232831@cheetah.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
>We've often heard the assertion ``A well-armed society is a polite society.''
>
>Well, I would add the clause ``A well-armed AND WELL-FED society ...'', after
>viewing what the wide distribution of guns has done to Somalia.

I think you have it somewhat askew. Somalia amply demonstrates what 
happens to an unarmed and defenseless populalace when only the
criminally motivated have guns. If there were a "wide distribution of guns"
then no one would be standing around while bandits stole food out of
their chidren's mouths.



-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 | Midterm Countdown-Bill and the Congress have to '94 to screw it up |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Sniper" with John Berringer
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:24:25 GMT
Organization: Chevron

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

 Actually, it stars TOM BERENGER who was also in PLATOON.

 Though the lead character does say the words "One shot, one kill"
 in the commercials, it is not about Carlos Hathcock's book.

 It's about a super-deadly sniper team with a Vietnam background
 who are sent to kill a Panamanian drug lord.

 Siskel & Ebert (reknown movie critics) gave it two thumbs up!!!


 TRAVIS
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:27:05 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

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

Why not?

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

Why?

Just because it looks impossible now is no reason not to continue to push 
for justice.  There was a time within memory of man when prominent 
politicians could get elected preaching, "Segegation t'day, segegation t'
morra, an segegation fo'evah!"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Pistol Permit in Cambridge, Part II
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:05:30 GMT

zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny):

>Please advise me on the process of appealing a denial of the above, for
>the (spurious) reason of failure to provide requested documentation.

What required documentation do they claim you denied them?

JD
From: toby@stein.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Letter to U.S. News
Date: 22 Jan 93 04:01:20 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

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


Dear sir:

	John Leo's anti-gun diatribe in the 25 January U.S. News gives a
second-hand account of a journalist receiving a federal firearms license
with "no questions asked".  As any cub reporter could discover with a
phone call, applicants for an FFL have their fingerprints taken and their
backgrounds checked by the FBI. 

	I anxiously await further John Leo editorials on how the
nationwide ban on cocaine sales has prevented crack abuse, a call for
banning "assault" cars that can exceed the speed limit, and a limit on the
number of "cheap, mass-produced" six-packs of beer that can be bought in
Virginia in a one month period.  Unfortunately, I will have to borrow a
copy of your magazine in order to read these well-researched articles, as
I herewith cancel my subscription.  I refuse to subsidize incompetent
reporting, and you should, too.

							Yours truly,


							H.D. Bradshaw, Jr.

From: mic@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Clarke)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:26:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Fort Collins Gun Ban!!  Jan. 19
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Ft. Collins, CO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

No kidding the meeting was long.  I left at 00:30, after the vote on
the amended resolution.  This was the first time I have ever attended
a City Council meeting.

As far as I could tell, the two women on the Council (the Mayor and
the Mayor Pro Tem) had introduced the resolution in honor of a
recently deceased third female of the Council.  As best I could
perceive, the two females had a deep and sincere concern for stemming
the rising tide of violence in Fort Collins.  My perception was that
the Mayor Pro Tem, who introduced the resolution, threw in the
material relating to firearms out of a hope that somehow reducing the
number of available firearms would help reduce the rising incidence of
violent crimes in Fort Collins.  She did not support her case, nor did
any of the anti-gun citizens who testified briefly before the council.

The Mayor seemed to be bitterly frustrated, and nearly in tears on
several occasions.

Several (male) members of the Council criticized the original
resolution because: 1) it contained a blanket reference to firearms,
when the Council had not looked at any data or evidence about the
availability of firearms relating to crimes or self-defence; 2) that
it was not appropriate for the Council to make policy on firearms
without having heard data and evidence; and 3) they were going to have
to listen to a bunch of people yack all night because the word
"firearm" was in the original resolution.  He put forward a motion to
strike the firearm references from the resolution.  Save for the Mayor
and Mayor Pro Tem, the entire Council voted to adopt his proposal to
strike the firearms clauses.

The Mayor expressed her anger and dissapointment at the anti-firearms
clauses being stricken.  The Mayor Pro Tem expressed her anger at the
amending of the resolution to take out the firearms clauses, and
forcefully stated that the measure should be on the next agenda.  We
will keep watch.

The Police Chief, who was present, did not testify.  He showed no
visable emotion.

I was dissapointed that the Council did not put anything into the
anti-violence resolution to address the violence spawning family
behaviors of child abuse, substance abuse by a parent with children,
and neglect.

All but one member of the Council (including the Mayor Pro Tem and the
Mayor) were not re-elected and will not be on the next council.  That
is, only one member of the current Council will be on the next
Council.  He was one of the males who spoke and voted in favor of
striking the anti-firearms clauses.

-- Marc Illsley Clarke
   Member, Colorado Firearms Coalition
   Life Member, National Rifle Association
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bazooka for sale!
Date: 25 Jan 1993 03:41:41 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu

 
]While not wishing to be pedantic, I cannot see how these people's
]trust/faith in their government caused their demise at the hands of an
]aggressor. In the case of Hitler, if the jews had more personal guns
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
]this may have given him a better excuse to kill them.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	It could have been worse?

Joan V
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey)
Subject: Re: college student shooting in MA
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:16:58 GMT

In article <1jdc6cINNe54@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> sekullbe@athena.mit.edu (Scott E Kullberg) writes:
>
>[I'm following up here because I'm talking about the same topic, but I'm
>not quoting because what I have to say doesn't really follow the current
>thread regarding citizenship vs. residency at universities]
>
>One radio talk show I heard here the day after the shooting, on the
>topic of "assault rifles", had a caller who said that the whole
>transaction was illegal; while the student could in fact purchase the
>rifle in MA under Montana laws, it could not be handed to him in MA, but
>should have been shipped to a FFL holder in Montana. The caller also
>said that the rifle generally sold for $100-150, not the $300 the news
>reports stated. I interpreted this as an implication that the dealer was
>getting this extra money as a bribe to break the law and hand over the
>rifle.
>
>Does anyone know if this is in fact the correct law?  If so, then all
>the people demanding changing the laws to prevent this can be told that
>the laws already DO make it a no-no, and that the dealer, not the law,
>was at fault.
>...

While I dont know the law about the purchase, it IS against
Massachusetts law to have a firearm on a college campus.
The possession of the gun was thus illegal at the time
of the shooting.


-- 
     Jim Lacey  --  my own opinions    
     email:  att!cbnewsl!jlacey  or  jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com
     D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bazooka for sale!
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:05:20 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan27.220015.195@guinness.idbsu.edu>, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
> In article <1k6netINNr6q@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >Your "perception of need" may result from a serious lack of understanding.  
> >Suzanne Gratia saw no obvious "need" to carry her handgun into Luby's 
> >Cafeteria.  She was not in a high-crime area.  But most of all it was 
> >illegal, so against her better judgement, she left it home.  As a result, 
> 
> actually, didn't she leave it in her car (truck?), parked outside?

OK, I'm sure you both are right.  My mind obviously edited that out, because
in my state it is illegal to leave a handgun unattended in a cat.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Text: New Brady Bill
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<DLB.93Jan27113457@fanny.wash.inmet.com>
	<VEAL.657.728157399@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:57:28 GMT

In article <VEAL.657.728157399@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu
(David Veal) writes:

[a summary of relevant sections]

Apologies: I misread the second section.  Ah, well, it's been that
kind of day.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Book Advert: Info about CA gun laws
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:28:50 GMT

[It's pretty good.]

"Everything You Always Wanted To Know About CALIFORNIA GUN LAWS --
Complete With Real-Life Examples That You Can Understand" 
by Peter Alan Kasler, J.D. is:

- 200+ pages of STATUTES, EXPLANATIONS & COMMENTS;

- COMMONLY-ASKED QUESTIONS (practical reality) section with clear
  answers, cross references to statutes and their explanations;

- Fully indexed and cross-referenced with a Table of Contents;

- Special introduction by Don B. Kates, Jr.;

- Revised periodically, never goes out of date.

Normally $25.00 + $4.00 S&H + CA sales tax, but SPECIAL NET OFFER:

	Send $25.00 to address below and we pay S&H and tax.

	Book will be shipped UPS within 72 hours of order receipt.

---
     Peter Alan Kasler                            Fax: 707-939-8684
     Threat Management Institute                Voice: 707-939-0303
     800 West Napa Street                     TMI BBS: 707-935-1713
     Sonoma, CA  95476                     Internet: tmi@netcom.com

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: gress@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (GRESS  JOSEPH JOHN  )
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:11:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan07.202117.43233@watson.ibm.com> mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps) writes:
>
>In article <4154@master.CNA.TEK.COM>, richa@grizzly.CNA.TEK.COM (Grizzly Amber) writes:
>|> 
>|> On boycotting Time-Warner,  note that one of their products is a
>|> sportsman's magazine (Outdoor Life?) that appears to contradict
>|> Time's stand on gun issues.
>|> 
>|> Does Time-Life / Time-Warner have an anti-gun stand, or is it
>|> just Time Magazine?
>
>Outdoor Life is owned by Times Mirror magazines.  Does anyone know if there is a
>connection between Time Warner  and  Times Mirror?  The officers of Times Mirror
>are:  Edward Johnson - chairman
>      Frances Pandolfi - pres & ceo
>
  I don't know if this is still the case, but about 10 or 15 years ago there 
was a connection between Outdoor Life and CBS TV.  We ended our subscription
to Outdoor Life right when we found out and told them why.  They never wrote
to deny a connection or claim that it was not an anti-gun connection, so
I assume that they were not uncomfortable with us drawing that conclusion.


>Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
>                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
> (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..       

PLAIN OLD JOE
From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 19:18:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Fort Collins Gun Ban!!  Jan. 19
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Point By Point (Was: "The coming shootout over guns")
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.93Jan20204103@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1993Jan21.222448.26369@igor.tamri.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:30:01 GMT

<In article <1993Jan21.222448.26369@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
<In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan20204103@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
<writes:
<><Four or five years ago, a columnist friend came back from 
<><crisscrossing the country and announced: "The rest of the country now knows 
<><what New York has known for years - the police can't help us."  What he 
<><meant is that the American public had lost its last illusions about 
<><violence:  that it was essentially a problem of the inner city and the drug 
<><trade, and that the police could protect us from it.
<>	
<>	Possibly. Possibly what he meant was, "The liberals have
<>	released so many lunatics and criminals that the police
<>	are swamped and cannot respond to cries for help; we are
<>	all on our own, again".

<   With possibly a wee bit of help from President Bush (oops, ex-President
<   Bush), whose brilliant plan to fill our jails with pot smokers forced
<   the release of violent criminals...

	Agreed, as a contributing factor, but not overwhelming.
	Baldwin knows, or should know, that people who call 
	themselves liberal have made it all but impossible 
	to put violent criminals in jail for long terms in
	the U.S. 

	You see, after 6 years or so, the average murderer
	is "rehabilitated"....so he's got to be let out.

	And I wonder if Pres. Clinton will keep the promise he
	made in at least one fund-raising letter I received;
	to *WIN* the "war on drugs" by "fully funding the
	agencies involved"....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rklute@enchanter.tymnet.com (Robert Klute)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text: New Brady Bill
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:56:34 GMT

In article <C1Gx0t.KK2@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>
>     Form 4 (for class III transfers). Here in Lexington Ky, the Chief
>     simply refuses to sign. The BATF blesses this position.
>     So, looks like now the Chief will be able to "not sign" for
>     handguns as well. Oh well, maybe the next crazy will open up at the
>     BATF or Senate instead of the CIA.
>
Not really, this is an either/or case.  Either (I) 7 days and no word from
the chief, or (II) the chief has OK'ed (this implies less than 7 days).

-----------
They came for the 4th amendment, I said nothing for I wasn't a drug dealer. 
Then they came for the 2nd amendment, but I said nothing, I wasn't a gun owner.
Then they came for the 6th amendment, but I kept quiet, I knew I wasn't guilty.
Finally they came for the 1st amendment, and it was too late to say anything.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape