HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cg181fbd@icogsci1.ucsd.edu (Christopher Krug)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Gun Bans?
Keywords: gun bans, what, where, when,...
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:36:56 GMT
Distribution: usa

Excuse my ignorance, but I have been in the library a little bit
too much lately, but could someone(s) fill me in on the supposed
doom for our guns that I keep hearing will occur at the beginning
of the new year?  

What is the overall plan?
Who will be affected?
What guns are proposed this time?
Is this a possible reality?

Any comments appreciated.  I'll try and pay more attention now.

PLEASE SEND E-MAIL TO:  klofgren@sdcc13.ucsd.edu
THIS POST IS NOT FROM MY USUAL ACCOUNT.


----
		Glock, There is NO Substitute!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Guns & self defense
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:01:49 GMT

In article <By6AuD.Fz3@access.digex.com> corun@access.digex.com (Corun MacAnndra) writes:
>[scenario deleted]
>I think you've been watching too much television. In the scenario you describe,
>only someone with police/combat training would have even the *slightest*
>chance of coming out of that alive.

Actually, his scenario truned on slow reaction times by the attacker
or quick, reflexive actions by the victim. Police/combat training 
doesn't relate to either of these: A one-time course and yearly
refresher training doen't speed up reflexive actions much. The 
real issue would be regular, frequent practice; something that
civilian gun owners often do a better job of than the police
and military.

>>>Don't ban the guns, ban the uses to which they are put.

>>Which now-legal uses should be banned?  Murder and assault are already
>>banned.  What will be the benefit of banning self-defense?  How about
>>recreational shooting?  Hunting?

>You missed the point here. I didn't say a word about banning hunting or
>recreational shooting. I was talking about violent crime in general...

But violent crime (and all the uses of guns you object to) are _already_
illegal. We _have_ "ban[ed] the uses to which they are put." (Here,
I assume you mean _criminal_ uses, when you say "uses.")

>...If
>there is some way to curtail the uses to which guns are put, then we obviate
>the *need* for them for self defense.

So the goal should be to enforce the existing laws. Oddly, proposed
gun control laws focus on legal sales through licensed dealers. Since
only 8% of gun-armed criminals get their weapons in this way, this
focus seems to be misplaced: The proposed laws do not effectively "curtail
the [criminal] uses to which guns are put."

>>Right.  So maybe we should oppose those who want to propose measures
>>that won't help but will use the resources we need to increase
>>social conciousness.

>I don't understand this comment. Are you saying that there are people putting
>forth measures to ban guns, knowing that they won't do any good...

Yes. The measures put forward to ban or restrict do not address the
problem of criminal use, and there is substantial evidence that the
people proposing these measures know they are ineffective.

>...and then
>using the money they get from the gov't to raise social consiousness? 

No, this is exactly what they do _not_ do: The groups advocating
gun control spend a great amount of money drum up public pressure
for such laws. In the process, they confuse the issue, mislead the
public, and generally _lower_ "social consiousness" about effective
means of crime reduction. Further, when these laws are enacted, they
waste police time and effort on enforcing laws that do not reduce
violent crime.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: the US elections...
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:50:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.002808.4508@csus.edu> altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>

>ANYBODY on this board supporting a ban on handguns. There has been discussion
>on what options we have on assault weapons (including automatic weapons),
>and I think we've all but exhausted the subject.
>
Murray, assault *rifles*, the only "assault weapons" with any
concrete definition attached to them, are by definition fully
automatic, and very rigidly controlled.  The only class of
so-called "assault weapons", using the media definition of
"ugly" guns, which is anything nearing a societal problem is
illegal guns, which no further laws will eliminate.  Enforcement
of existing laws might help.
>
>If you're feeling like a scapegoat, then it's your head, not mine. If you've
>noticed, I have in my posts said that I don't look forward to the day when
>I feel the need for a gun, but THAT I WILL PURCHASE ONE if that day arrives,

No, you probably won't.  You may be *allowed* to purchase one a week
or two *after* that day arrives (depending on the damage that the
next administration will wreak on the bill of rights, and whether
you change your current state of residence), but you'll probably have
to wait to exercise your *right* to have a gun.

				Dave Schabel


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Schabel         | Opinions and comments contained herein are mine and  |
schabel@calspan.com  | do not necessarilly reflect those of Calspan Corp or |
                     | its customers.                                       |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: WCMH "Shoot, Don't Shoot" series.  Wow!
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:08:10 GMT
Keywords: wcmh 5 part tv series, lawful use of lethal force,

WCMH (channel 4 in Columbus, OH) is running a 5 part series this week
on the use of lethal force, specifically firearms for self defense.
It's on twice a day, at 5:30 and then again at 7:00.

They have actors playing out real incidents from central Ohio where lethal
force was used, and then they review the incident with the county prosecutor
(or maybe someone else).  A phone-in poll at 5:30 asks the audience if you
would have fired in the same situation; the results of the phone-in poll are
reported at 7:00.  I did not see the 5:30 show, so I don't know how the two
broadcasts differed.

In the first incident a burglar approaches a home, tries to break in
the front door of a home.  That didn't work so he moves to other windows
and doors trying to get in.  The burglars noise wakes up the home owner.
The home owner gets a revolver and starts looking around his home.  The
burglar opens a window and starts crawling in.  The home owner sees him
coming in and yells, "Stop right there.  I'll shoot you if you come in
here."  The burglar says, "Dont' shoot.  Please don't shoot" and backs off.
The home owner goes to a telephone, calls 911 and reports a burglar is
trying to break in and that he (the owner) has a gun, and for the police
to get their asap.  Meanwhile, the burglar opens the window again and
gets into the house.  He walks from the room he got in to the foyer of
the house.  The owner is at the top of the stairs and yells, "I told you
I was going to shoot you.".  He shoot and kills the burglar.

The discussion afterward centers on the fact that the home owner did have
reasonable fear for his life, and because of that he could lawfully shoot
and kill the burglar.  The reporter asks the prosecutor some variations of
that scenario to explore what is and isn't lawful.  The phone-in poll had
89% agreeing they would have fired in the same situation, and 11% said
they would not.

WCMH is to be commended for this valuable series; they are at:

WCMH
3165 Olentangy River Rd.
Columbus, OH 43202
614-263-4444
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:10:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Please define assult weapon; was: Re: the US elections...
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

In talk.politics.guns, urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin) writes:

 >   Please name any `assult weapon' that is not an automatic weapon.

As far as any legislator is concerned, a definition is DEFINATELY not needed
or wanted.

This is what they do:

1. Make a List

2. include language to cover "copies", "variants", and "similar
configurations".

3. include language to have a non-electoral body such as the BATF or the
Treasury make recommendations to add to the list.

Viola!  A dynamically enforceable and expandable list.  It doesn't have to
make sense or be justifiable or be precise.

David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Open Carry, Why Not?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 07:24:46 GMT

In <Bxw7B6.4vF@world.std.com> kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey) writes:
> 
>Here's my question to ya'll:  given that I've the opportunity, can you
>think of any reason why I shouldn't carry?  Many thanks in advance.

	By all means, carry.  The real question is, "Why advertise?"

< 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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A modern, REALISTIC view.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:42:18 GMT

ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:

>chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:

>>In the American Revolution the British had the most powerful navy in
>>the world.  The could have cut America off from the rest of the world.

>The expense would not have been just in money.

	Quite true.  Britain *needed* the colonies as a source of both
raw materials and labor.  At the time, American could have existed as
a self-sufficient economy.  We were not the Japan of today, dependent
upon foreign raw materials and buyers of finished goods.  The war would
have played havok on her own economy had it been taken much farther.  As
it was, she quit and got a rather nice trading partner.  Sort of reminds
me of Japan in many respects.

< 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: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Subject: Re: the US elections...
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:28:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.224621.18137@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
   andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.011357.16581@csus.edu>
   altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov15.121653.14888@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>
>>I don't know why there is always such a vociferous reaction on the part of
>>gun owners to any mention of this topic. A little sensitive? Nothing in
>>either Ashley's or my post talked about abolition of handguns, only tighter
>>controls over their distribution.
>
>Of course we're a little sensitive.  We're being hosed.  Nothing good
>will come of it and we'll be hosed again.  Gun bans, which have been
>proposed at the national level and implemented at the local level, are
>the only end-point to that progression.

Only if you allow that the extreme case in any argument will in the end
predominate. Neither I nor Ashley have proposed a ban, in fact, she just
bought a gun, so I doubt she would support a ban. She was only bemoaning
the need in today's society for _needing_ a gun, and I agreed with her. The
amount of discussion this has generated is pretty amazing. I don't recall
ANYBODY on this board supporting a ban on handguns. There has been discussion
on what options we have on assault weapons (including automatic weapons),
and I think we've all but exhausted the subject.

>As long as you're completely uninterested in the effects of those
>"tighter controls", we're going to squawk.  After all, we're the only
>people being affected.  Scapegoats are like that.
>
>It is a bit much to expect that people who moan about being accused of
>doing child-sacrifices would understand this sort of thing, and that's
>sad.
>
>-andy

If you're feeling like a scapegoat, then it's your head, not mine. If you've
noticed, I have in my posts said that I don't look forward to the day when
I feel the need for a gun, but THAT I WILL PURCHASE ONE if that day arrives,
and learn how to use it safely. And comparing that with child sacrifices
hardly props up your argument. Like comparing sado-masochistic homosexual
psychotic killers with two people playing BDSM games in their bedroom.

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

bout the Libertarian Party of the United States?
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: RE: Gun Control
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:26:55 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA06141; Tue, 17 Nov 92 10:39:57 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA23517; Tue, 17 Nov 92 10:39:53 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 5016; Tue, 17 Nov 92 11:40:36 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 7430; Tue, 17 Nov 92 11:40:35 MST
X-To: talk.politics.guns.usenet

From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A modern, REALISTIC view.
Date: 16 Nov 1992 13:40:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

>
>>computers. modems. faxes. encryption programs. the kinds of things
>>the government is already trying to control. "for our own good", of
>>course.
>
>Not "trying."  They DO control them.  Wiretaps are easy for the
>government.  And in the case of a civil war, they wouldn't bother
>with warrants.  Encryption programs are a joke to the military.

       Actually, it would appear that the government doesn't possess
  the amount of control it wants.  Look into the FBI "Wiretapping Bill"
  up before congress.  It would require all makers of communication and
  computer equipment to install wiretapping capabilities in ALL
  equipment.  In the words of the FBI -  " We won't back done on this one ".

>Man, you've been reading "Soldier of Fortune" too much.  The quantity
>of explosive you'd need would fill a wharehouse.
>

     As a former C.E. major, I say  Not True.

>Very simple, actually.  A large fraction of our military are in the guard and
>reserve...i.e., they are civilians who go play soldier once a month.  Think
>*all* of these people are going to cooperate when they are called up and
> ordered to mow down their friends and neighbors?  Think some of them might
>defect...taking some of their high priced military equipment with them?

    Personally, I think quite a few would defect.  Probably close 50%.

>>> With this in mind, is gun control a reasonable thing?  Well, the

     Yes, it is reasonable.  So is killing anyone who opposes you,
     destroying any competition in free markets, etc.

>>> In England, the COPS don't even carry guns.  If somebody is
>>> reported breaking in somewhere with a gun, they don't surround the
>>> place with unarmed cops, they call in a special force of snipers
>>> and pick the guy off.  It works.  Less than 20 gun deaths a year.
>>> More than 20,000 here.  Which side of this argument looks most
>>> reasonable? Let's get real.

      In the recent, memorable words of Pat Schroeder

        " Then go to Mexico ", I mean, Britain.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Yoshi Hattori
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 08:43:15 GMT

bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:

>Even if he did, is stupidity now a capital offense?

	In many situations, it always has been.  Just ask the guy
who divided his forces at the Little Big Horn, or the folks at Wisby
who tried to fight the Danes, or the Egyptian Army who tried to cross
the Red Sea on chariots, or even Marie Curie.  She died as a result of
stupidity -- what she *didn't* know is what killed her.

< 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: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: The "Invisible" Glock Mythology
Organization: Racal-Datacom
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:27:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.003454.20041@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <4400270@iftccu.boeing.com> bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
>>Speaking of invisible stuff --- I've never had anybody check the contents
>>of a thermous.  Could be coffee --- could be gasoline, or something even 
>>MORE dangerous.   Or maybe it's just MY thermous they don't check.
>>Airport security is a joke.
>It was once pointed out to me that tonfas (including the police-issue
>PR-24 sort) are as effective a weapon as a knife and made entirely
>of wood. They go right through an ariport x-ray machine.

   The police-issue PR-24's are made of high impact plastic.  Really nifty!
Any forearm-sized bit of solid wood or plastic makes a very effective weapon.
But then who needs `em?  They give you scalding hot liquids right on the 
plane!

Mark Urbin  Racal-Datacom  Boxborough, MA   urbin@interlan.interlan.com   
These opinions are mine.  No one else will admit to them.	          
"It is caffeine alone that sets my mind in motion.  It is through beans of
java that thoughts acquire speed, that hands acquire shakes, that shakes
become a warning...I am...IN CONTROL...OF MY ADDICTION!"
                        --From the Minicon Graffiti Wall, 1989(?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Yoshi Hattori / UPI
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 15:30:47 EST
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:

> Lets change the situation a bit.  Lets suppose Phil is in the parking
> lot, maybe standing in a parking stall holding it for a friend.  Lets
> suppose this woman pulls up and tells him that if he doesn't vacate the
> spot so she can park, she is going to run him down.  Now what?  She has
> suppose this woman pulls up and tells him that if he doesn't vacate the
> spot so she can park, she is going to run him down.  Now what?  She has
> the ability, she has the opportunity, and she has expressed the intent to
> put him in harms way.  At this point he is probably justified in drawing
> a gun.  If she moves to implement her plan he can and should shoot her
> if he can't escape.  The only reason I list escape here, is that guns,
> as a rule, aren't very effective against cars.

Your example is flawed. Most places, unless you are attacked in your
home or place of business you are obliged to retreat if you can do
so without placing yourself in additional hazard. The correct answer
in this situation is to let them have the parking space and get their
description and tag number and report it to the police.

In this case law and common sense actually coincide. Get into a gun
fight over a parking space? I don't think so.

(If your mail bounces use the address below.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: A thought on the comming gun bans
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Nov11.033027.24187@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<ATAYLOR.92Nov12142357@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Nov14.054404.4397@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:31:21 GMT

<In article <1992Nov14.054404.4397@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
<In article <ATAYLOR.92Nov12142357@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<><   No, but the Supreme Court probably would: They are willing to overturn
<><   laws on Fifth Amendment grounds, even if they are reluctant to hear
<><   Second Amendment cases.

<>	They are? Hmm....why, then, is RICO still on the books?

<Because the Supreme Court (for some reason) considers the seizere of
<things used to commit another, unrealted crime to be different from
<a general ban (e.g. seizing a car used to transport drugs isn't the same as
<a seizure of cars in general.)

	I see. 

	So if President Clinton's "Drug Czar" were to declare all 
	so-called "semi-automatic assault rifles" to be "drug dealer 
	paraphenalia" under an Executive Order and order their seizure
	under civil law, the Supreme Court would no doubt hear
	the case just like they heard all those RICO cases?


	Hmmmm. Is there an "oops", here?

	Let's all hope that Clinton's Justice Department doesn't
	decide to RICO a few firearms owners....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns