HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary)
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:58:34 GMT
Summary: Guns used in self defense 1,000,000 times per year

In article <LAMBERT.92Dec22034830@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>, lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> >>>>> On 17 Dec 92 20:32:55 GMT, ljb@parkcity.dr.att.com (BLO54620-BonhamLJ(DR2194)240) said:
> 
> > The point I wish to make is that what one will not find when
> > perusing the news papers are any stories about crimes being foiled
> > by gun owning victims, despite the fact that the NIJ (Nat'l
> > Institute of Justice) estimates that between 600,000-900,000 crimes
> > are prevented or stopped each year in the U.S. by lawfully armed
> > citizens.  This out numbers by more than 3 to 1 the number of crimes
> > committed anually, with or with out firearms.  In other words, don't
> > believe everything in the papers.
> 
> And don't believe everything you read in this newsgroup.  According to
> the National Crime Survey, there are 80,000 crimes each year where
> guns are used in self-defence (not always successfully), and there are
> 800,000 crimes committed with guns each year in the US.  I'm not sure
> that the ratio (used against criminals)/(used by criminals) makes much
> sense, but it seems to run about 10 to 1 against the good guys.
> 
> Sources?  Why Kleck's Social Problems 35:1 paper, of course.
> Strangely Kleck gives a larger estimate based on a smaller, less
> accurate poll greater emphasis :-)
> 
> Tim

Well Mr. Lambert and I agree - I don't believe everything I
read in this newsgroup.  However, when I check sources
the gun controllers are usually the ones that don't come off too
well.

Others have pointed out that the 80,000 is the number of reported
defenses in a given year.

Additionally, the gun controllers seem to be unaware that Kleck
cites (in Point Blank for instance) several surveys all yielding 
estimates of around one million defensive uses of firearms each 
year in the United States.

So there is nothing strange about Kleck giving a larger emphasis
to a smaller, less accurate poll - because it isn't true - he
uses several polls to support his estimate.  

By the way, readers may want to ask Mr. Lambert what happened to
the population weighted residential burglary rate in Kennesaw,
Georgia when the mandatory gun ownership law was passed.
(Hint: It didn't stay the same)

Brian Leary

Organization: Doctoral student, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:27:52 -0500 
From: Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Washington Post on Qat

Excerpts from netnews.talk.politics.guns: 19-Dec-92 Re: Washington Post
on Qat by @cs.umd.edu 
[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.

ummm... shouldn't that be:
The biases of the populace seem to reflect the bias of the media...?

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. I'm
severely overgeneralizing the latter, as I was raised in the former
(although I wasn't meant to be :-)  ).

-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   |      
------------------------------|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Here's the problem
Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:46:24 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec23.065614.12474@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> }>Is this a joke or have you been residing on Mars or something. The war
> }>on guns has been going on since before I was born!

> Yes, but has it been declared?

What difference does it make?

> Close, but not quite a declaration, eh:-)?

Since 1950, the US has been involved in four real, MILITARY wars, and not 
a ONE of them was ever declared.  The people killed in them were no less 
dead because of it.  Apparently, formal conflict etiquette went out with 
top hats.
-- 

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
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:36:43 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1992Dec31.200928.9137@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>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.

Evidently that is the case here in Massachusetts, now.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgiveness
Keywords: TIME, pleading
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:49:49 GMT

cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>>	Instead the guy on the phone read my letter to Time, Inc to
>>       me, 

>You mean you had previously written this letter to the editor, and the
>sales guy had a copy? If so, it would mean they at least noticed your
>letter. 

	He mentioned he was with the Customer Relations department of
Time Magazine.  It is unlikely they would farm this out to a telemarketing
firm, but it's not impossible.  Either way, they not only noticed my
letter, they were making a specific effort to address my concerns and
try to get me back in the fold.  The letter did not cancel my former
subscription, so it wasn't targeted solely at those letters.

>Salescritters make their living by being convincing. He makes a commission
>on every subscription he sells, so I would assume that he's telling me what
>the thinks I want to hear. I would have said, "I'd like to see this new
>policy published in Time magazine. Then I'll change my mind."

	Having worked telemarketing, I am very certain the man was not
reading a script as is common, and furthermore the new subscription leaves
Time in a seriously no-win situation unless I am convinced to renew or
at least not cancel.  Somebody did their research on me, and this effort
alone is costing Time more monay than what my subscription will bring.

	Consider me your "inside source," for Time, Inc.; I'll be
most proud to provide my own editorial comments on this new policy
of theirs, if it even exists.  They have 40 weeks at most to
convince me, and they know it.  It was indicated that the first issue
in January will contain an editorial note concerning this roasting
they recieved from former subscribers.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
From:  (MJ)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Busted: Harry Connick Jr. in Illinois
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:30:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Distribution: usa

In article <csjohn.725729006@knuth.mtsu.edu>, csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (J
Wallace) wrote:

In <4230@eastman.UUCP> (MJ) writes:
 
>Harry Connick Jr. getting arrested ... trying to bring an unloaded 9mm
>pistol... JFK airport in New York City, according to CNN.
 

>>NYC laws will compound this. Transport of handguns acquired out of state of
>>residence without a dealer's license (FFL) is a federal no-no.  And any
 
>>> Are you absolutely sure about this?  
>>> I thought this only applied to class 3 weapons.

The GCA of '68 made the acquiring (e.g. purchase, gifts) (excludes
bequethed firearms) of firearms outside your state of residence illegal
without an FFL.  The GOP of '86 rescinded that for rifles and shotguns but
it still holds true for handguns.  See Title I of GCA of '68 with
ammendments (Public Law 99-308, Chapter 44 Paragraph 922 (a) (3)(A) and (b)
(3) (A))

MJ

[As if you didn't already know, my opinions are my own and not my
company's.]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Traveling with a gun
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:56:08 GMT

>I believe it is ok, as long as your destinition state/city doesn't
>have any laws against your possession of a handgun.
>
>I believe the 1986 McClure-Volkmer law protects you from law-enforcement
>harassment while you are in route to your destination.
>

Wrong :(.  It is SUPPOSED to protect you against harassment, but doesn't always
work that way.  Some jurisdictions pretty much ignore the law, and your attorney
is free to point out the legality of your actions while running up your fees.
Also, the IL state supreme court ruled that this 1986 law protects you from
criminal prosection, but that police are under no obligation to return 
lawfully posessed guns they seize while you are in transit.

The law also requires that the trip be "continuous and uninterrupted", but congress
never bothered to define exactly what that means, or what you're supposed to
do if, for example, you have an unexpected delay (vehicle breakdown, etc.).

>I believe that the law also says it is ok to  have it in your car,
>provided it is not readily accessable & useable.  That would defeat your
>purpose then, wouldn't it?
>
>Call the BATF & ask them to send you a redbook.

Or just ask for an FFL application - a redbook and greenbook will come with
it.  The greenbook contains some laws from all states & territories (just the laws
which help dealers determine if an out of state resident can legally buy in his/
her home state).  The laws from the marianas Territories are most interesting - the
licensed crockodile hunter (limited by law to one at any one time) has special
gun privliges!

>-- 
>John Wallace   ||   INTERNET: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu
>> > We have just the government that we deserve < <      



                                        rob b.
                                        rboudrie@chpc.org
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A thought about fully automatic weapons...
Date: 23 Dec 1992 13:30:49 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com


>As an example, back in the 18th century, gentlemen considered it their
>right to defend their honor by fighting a duel.  This duel required the
>consent of both parties.  The rules were agreed to by both parties
>(although there were prevailing customs).  The government was not
>involved at all.  Nobody not a party to the disagreement was hurt; all
>were consenting adults.  Today, duels are illegal.  We now defend these
>governmental restrictions as reasonable under the concept of preventing
>m

Actually, dueling was illegal in those days as well.  It's just that, if
the duel was a fair one, there was often an unwillingness to prosecute.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 00:37:58 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
Distribution: usa

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <9212311249.09@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>What most people in this thread want is the right for anyone to just
>>walk into Fred's Gun Store, plunk down the money, and walk out with
>>the gun and ammo of choice.

>Since there don't seem to be any benefits to policies other than that,
>what's so unreasonable about it?

Yup.

>>I maintain that I wouldn't want to live in a state like that, as it
>>would rapidly turn into a scenario like Beirut.

Gee, Rick, don't ever come to Georgia then because any resident can 
just walk into any gun store, plunk down the loot and walk out with
a gun.  Not only can I buy a pistol any time I want, I can also
get a non-discretionary concealed carry permit just for the asking
and the payment of a small fee.  (non-discretionary in that the gov't
cannot withold the permit from people who meet the law abiding criteria.)

I should note in passing that with the exception of Atlanta,
Georgia has one of the lower crime rates in the nation.  I should
also note that until last year when we defeated it in court, Fulton
County (atlanta), the FBI's 2nd place murder capital of the nation 
HAD a waiting period.  Is the crime rate a coincidence?

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:21:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:

>Tim doesn't understand what is being said.  The 80,000 cases of defensive
>gun use is what was reported.  I, personally have used my handgun
>defensively three times in the past ten years.  Never has it been reported.
>The estimated 600k-900k defensive gun uses are of this type, where because
>of the gun, NOTHING happened.  Therefore, NOTHING was reported!

This is the problem with most of the statistics that gun control nuts
quote.  Most if not all gun owners would be perfectly happy to run off
the criminal without having to kill him or her (Hey, equal rights in
crime, too. ;) ).  In these cases I'd be willing to believe that only
one in ten get reported.  Having dealt with self-defense situation
(where I survived out of luck since I can't carry in Texas) where the
police were involved, I can say that it's an amazingly troublesome
process.

If I'd had a gun on me, I'd have had my hand on it when I saw the guy
coming, and I'd have pulled it when I saw his knife.  Then I'd have
seen just how fast he could run.  ;)
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: goguenm@bach.udel.edu (Matthew L Goguen)
Subject: Re: For gun control? No not really.
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:26:24 GMT

As an engineering student, I will be so bold as to say that
'Social Engineering' is a glorified pipe dream.  There are no certified
Social Engineers, there is no firm basis in this country for Social 
Engineering, EE has the IEEE and MIL Spec standards as well as a few
others.  For anyone to say that violence can be socialy designed away
shows how little they really know about engineering and life.  Even 
shrinks can not engineer the mind though some think they can. I can not
see how banning guns will automatically reduce violence, my guess using
a scientific method would be that the outlet would be change, maybe from
murder with a gun, to rape, molestation, assult, stabbings, exploding
cars and gas tanks, molotof cocktails, or any other nasty you can think of.
There is an inlet of hate and destruction, is it the gun, or is that just the
outlet of an even bigger problem that no one on this planet can begin to
touch, at least for quite a while.
Matt Goguen 
goguenm@bach.udel.edu
From: kevin@msus1.msus.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A thought about fully automatic weapons...
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:42:07 -0600
Organization: Metro State U, Minneapolis MN

In article <1992Dec22.190246.12086@raid.dell.com>, mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:
> 
> The M-16's I have fired had no 3 round limitation.  They could fire
> continuously until either your magazine was empty of the barrel melted.
> 
M16A1 is full auto with a manual burst mode. (Your finger)
M16A2 3 rd burst to 1 pull of trigger when in auto mode.  

Another purpose to full-auto other than suppressive fire is that of clearing
rooms.  I was taught to throw in a grenade, wait for it to blow up, enter room
firing bursts at targets.

-- 
============================================================================
Kevin Whyte						kevin@msus1.msus.edu
	**Representing and speaking for no one but myself.**
"Still, the best augurs are those who divine from the portents of the past. 
They compile phenomenal records." Croaker "The Black Company" by Glen Cook

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Guns & Age
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:18:58 GMT

bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:

>I suggested to him via Email that he procure and
>read "NAZI GUN CONTROL" by Aaron Zelman and Jay Simkin, of the
>Jews for the PReservation of Firearms Ownership. One will find,
>for instance, that the whole concept of "handgun Control" and 
>"Sporting Purpose" BOTH come from the NAZI law. How interesting.

	Note that this doesn't mean the law is inherently bad just
because the Nazi's thought it up.  It does, however, mean that it
will probably be worth less than, say, dogspit when applied to the USA.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

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 19:30:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.192012.13248@raid.dell.com>, mikepb@lupus.dell.com
(Michael P. Brininstool) writes:

> In article <PA146008.574.725049025@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> >>         In my experiance, this isn't common at all.  While the same 
> >> arguments seem to apply to drug legalization as to the RKBA, a great many 
> >> people support one, but not the other.  Those that support both, 
> >> unfortunately, appear to be in the minority.  (And before a lot of people 
> >> respond to this post with "I'm a data point," posts, consider that Usenet 
> >> isn't by any stretch of the imagination representative of the general 
> >> population.)
> 
> I happen to support both.  I do not think the Federal Govt has any business
> regulating that kind of thing.  There isn't even a Federal charge for
> murder.  It is a State charge, because way back when, the federal
> government KNEW it didn't have the authority for that kind of law.

Well, it could be argued under the 5th Amendment:

" No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; ..."

If you murder someone, you have deprived them of life w/o due process...
But as a general rule, those powers properly belong to the States.

-- 
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
Date: Tuesday, 22 Dec 1992 16:34:59 EST
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: What to do when stopped by the police

In article <1992Dec21.235329.19329@ttinews.tti.com>, hollombe@polymath.tti.com
(The Polymath) says:
>
>When the police pull you over you are under arrest.  Giving them a hard
>time and/or failing to obey orders constitutes resisting arrest.

You're making this one up, aren't you? Better check the legal eagles.

>Rodney King could tell you a lot about the consequences of resisting
>arrest.

The four asshole ex-cops who beat Mr. Green to death in Detroit
could tell you a lot about the consequences of considering a badge
an excuse to behave as though one is above the law.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: skimmel@amex-trs.com (Steve Kimmel)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Intentions?
Organization: American Express Travel Related Services
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:16:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.003737.20056@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>
>>Another media blitz, initiated by Josh Sugarman, is to increase regulation
>>on gun dealers.  By reducing the number of dealers [e.g., by requiring
>>gun dealer applicants to obtain local law enforcement approval on the
>>application form], competition is lessened, prices go up and the demand
>>for guns goes down.
>
>	There is a whole association for "stocking" FFL holders dedicated
>to just this very goal.   I don't remember the name.  In my opinion, 
>people who try to get government to muscle out their competition for
>them are crawley little worms.
>
>Jim Del Vecchio

In this month's Atlantic Magazine is an article about a 15yr old kid in VA(?)
who had his uncle purchase a cobray m-11 for him and subsequently took it to
school and killed one teacher and wounded another.  Much of the article is
devoted to explaining the gun trade and examining the dealer who sold the
gun. The dealer was sued by the husband of the woman who was killed.  The
author of the article applied for and was granted a FFL to, in his paraphrased
words, insert himself deeper into the gun trade.  Plenty of scare phraseology
aimed at the liberal intellectual readership.  

-- 
Steve Kimmel   N7ULW           Phoenix, AZ      |                         
Internet skimmel@amex-trs.com                   | my views only, in no way
UUCP	 uupsi!amexphx!skimmel                  | the views of my employer.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns