HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: The Knee Jerks in MA
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:45:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.192908.19632@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>Sean;
>
>>
>>Armed camp society or reduction of availability. Take your pick.
>
>To me an armed camp (i.e. citizens are allowed to arm themselves) would
>be fine. Of course to me the term armed camp is a more sinister thing like
>a bunch of unarmed citizens being controlled by armed police or military
>force. Kind of like DC or NYC.
>
>Reduction of availability even if possible (c.f. Zip Guns and black market
>guns) would not help and would probably make the situation worse.
>
>>The current situation is unacceptable.
>
>Correct. Citizens need to have their right to bear arms restored. Even
>a 10% legally armed population should drasticly limit violent crime
>esp. WRT repeat offenders.


And here's an interesting question I throw to the net.  
Indiana is pretty good about letting citizenry keep and bear arms.
It's been esimated that in a given crowd of people about 5% will be
legally carrying a concealed firearm.  We do have a few
murder/suicides, overt homicides, and the occasional violent crime,
but these are always big events, and usually make the newspapers (for
the longest time here in Bloomington the biggest murder we'd had was a
lady who killed her husband with his bowling ball, there's still a
memorial every year in the newspaper).  When I worked in Indianapolis,
my service had the county contract to bring bodies to the county
morgue.  So almost all the dead people in Indy went via our service.
We'd take a murder victim about once a week.  That's just not all the
frequent.  The papers usually report a murder every couple of weeks or
so for southern Indiana.  We just don't have all that much violent
crime.  

I can not think of any incident where there has been a mass murder
here in Indiana.  I also know of a few mass robbery attempts in other
states that have been thwarted by citizens legally carrying concealed
weapons.  

My question to the net is,  what is the ratio of such incidents.  The
big ones I can think of all seem to occur in states where legal
concealed carry for the victims was either not an option, or very
difficult.  What is the ratio of events occuring in states where it is
easy for a law abiding citizen to legally carry concealed to states
that restrict civilian concealed carry?


-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: BATF 800 Number
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:54:38 GMT



Could somebody be so kind as to post or e-mail me BATF's 800 number?  I 
know somebody who'd actually like to turn in a CRIMINAL using it, but I
don't have it handy.  I'd like to get this ASAP, as the person in question
is in fact apparently dangerous.  From what I'm told, he should appeal to
BATF's interests in a number of ways.

Let's see if they're as zealous in harrassing CRIMINALS....

Thanks.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: The Knee Jerks in MA
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:32:21 GMT

amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:

>My question to the net is,  what is the ratio of such incidents.  The
>big ones I can think of all seem to occur in states where legal
>concealed carry for the victims was either not an option, or very
>difficult.  What is the ratio of events occuring in states where it is
>easy for a law abiding citizen to legally carry concealed to states
>that restrict civilian concealed carry?

This reminds me of the mass murder in Kileen, Texas.  There is no
legal concealed or open carry in Texas.  Several people said that they
felt they could have stopped the man if they'd had their guns.  One
woman who had been illegally carrying a gun in her purse had just
taken it out that morning.  She was sure her parents would still be
alive had she had her gun.

People who would point to this case and say that the murderer
shouldn't have had access to handguns, you must realize that he
obviously disregarded the law about carrying them and killing people
with them.  Compared to that, obtaining a gun through the black market
is an insignificant crime.

The man obviously wouldn't have been stopped even if he _hadn't_ been
able to get ahold of a gun.  Hell, he drove his truck through the side
of the restaurant.  Lack of a gun wouldn't have kept him from running
people down, or poisoning them, or blowing them up, etc.

The fact is that there _are_ people who _will_ attempt to kill others
_whether_or_not_ they can legally obtain guns.  The only real
deterrent is fear of getting themselves killed in the process.  In
some cases, such as the above, that doesn't matter to the criminal
anyway.  However, an armed citizen can cut the criminal's career
short.

...And they wonder why we call them "Gun Control _Nuts_."
-- 
-----------------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
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: ACLU and Crime (NOV 92, CJUST-L)
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:10:24 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


Very pretty words from the ACLU, and I agree with most of what they
are saying.

However, I find it interesting to note what they are not saying about
firearms and their use to prevent crime.  As usual, they think there
are only nine amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Effectiveness of gun control
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:26:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.190031.24169@vexcel.com>
dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>From Vol. 325 No. 23 of the New England Journal of Medicine:
>
>"Effects of REstrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in
>	the District of Columbia"
>
>Abstract
>
>Background
>
>Whether restricting access to handguns will reduce firearm-related homicides
>and suicides is currently a matter of intense debate.  In 1976 the District
>of Columbia adopted a law that banned the purchase, sale, transfer or
>possession of handguns by civilians.  We evaluated the effect of implementing
>this law on the frequency of homicides and suicides.
>
>Methods
>
>Homicides and suicides committed from 1968 through 1987 were classified
>according to place of occurrence (within the District of Columbia or in
>adjacent metropolitan areas where the law did not apply), cause
>(homicide or suicide), mechanism of death (firearms or other means),
>and time of occurrence (before or after the implementation of the law).
>The number of suicides and homicides was calculated for each month
>during the study period, and the differences between the mean monthly
>totals before and after the law went into effect were estimated.
>
>Results
>
>In Washington, D.C., the adoption of the gun-licensing law coincided
>with an abrupt decline in homicides by firearms ( a reduction of 3.3
>per month, or 25%) and suicides by firearms (reduction, 0.6 per month,
>or 23%).  No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides
>or suicides committed by other means, nor were there similar
>reductions in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and
>Virginia.  There were also no increases in homicides or suicides by other
>methods, as would be expected in equally lethal means were substituted
>for handguns.

         I haven't read this study, but a couple of things jump out at me.
First, we've been bombarded for as long as I've been paying attention by
reports of "record" years of homicides in the D.C. area, and this doesn't
jibe.  If homicides with firearms and declined by 25%, and homicides (as they
are reported) make up 60% of homicides, and no other forms of homicide
increased, then there should have been a *dramatic* decrease in homicides,
enough to make the news sit up and take notice.  (They reported a *2%*
drop in overall homicide this year, and that's not nearly as big.)
         Second, every number I have ever read says that suicide by firearm
is more common than homicide with a firearm.  Yet a reduction of 0.6 per
mont was listed as 23%, as opposed to the homicide at 3.3 per month and
25%.  This, if true, at least shows that Washington D.C. may be so far
away from any other place in the U.S. that it isn't comparable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lydic@ka8lvz.uucp (lydic)
Subject: Re: GUN CONDOMS
Organization: organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 04:19:34 GMT

In article <C052n8.52J@ra.nrl.navy.mil> pumphrey@falcon.nrl.navy.mil (Kenneth Pumphrey) writes:
>	A little thought (no puns please).  
>
>			GUN CONDOMS
>
>	O.K. I got your attention, here's the thought.  Instruction is 
>given to children of all ages in SEX education.  Some school system and public
>health systems have even given out condums.  The current politically correct
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Here is the key phrase

>intent is to educate our children on various issues of family, birth control
>and prevention of disease (AIDS,HIV transmision).  
>
>	Now, we are breaking down the TABOO barrier of discussing outloud in
>and in public the Nations' problem with sex and contracting AIDS which kills 
>as effectley a guns in the long term.
>
>	Educate our children on guns, and protecting themselves in handling,
>confronting and finding.  Our education system is the perfect media.  Banning
>has little if any affect, (i.e. don't have sex before marriage). Just simply 
>stating "if you find a gun, find an adult" (I know a lot of adults that 
>can't tell the differance between a crossbow and a squirt gun) is not enough.

   The NRA offers the Eddie Eagle program materials to any school system that
   wants it FREE OF CHARGE.  As an active instructor myself, I can tell you
   that most school systems (administrators & school boards) want nothing to
   do with firearms safety training.  They seem to think that teaching a
   child how to be safe with a firearm is tantamount to condoning the use
   of firearms.

   Educational magazines such as Parents Magazine are equally at fault in
   this attempt to educate.  Firearms & the associated training is VERY
   Politically Incorrect.

   -.. .

   John W. Lydic Jr              lydic@ka8lvz.cmhnet.org

   Certified Firearms Instructor         (NRA)
   Certified Hunter Education Instructor (Ohio)

   "We live beyond our means, on other peoples dreams, and that's succeeding"
   Janis Ian 'Between the lines'
   ... -.-
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:49:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.205518.17352@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>
>>Well, let's see.  Two months ago, a state police officer stopped a man
>>for speeding.  The man's target permit became visible as he offered his
>>license, and an illegal search of the car followed.  The police found an
>>expensive pistol belonging to the man's mother.  They determined that he
>>was not on his way to a sporting event, so they confiscated the pistol
>>and charged the man under Bartley-Fox.  Bartley-Fox says specifically
>>that you cannot be charged under it if you have ANY license to carry

[ps: he means any Massachusetts license to carry - r.b.]

>>(although the police can then revoke your license).  Despite this, the
>>judge ignored the law and convicted the man.  Also, they did not return
>
>
>	Why didn't he ask for a jury trial?

There was no trial - see below.

>
>JD

He never had ANY "trial"; he had a "hearing".  The judge at the "hearing" did
NOT convict the man; she ruled for a "continuance without a finding" for a
period of one year.  This kind of disposition keeps the charge in sort of a
limbo for the specified period of time - theoritically they can prosecute the
case at a later time (within the continuance period), but do not unless the
person is somehow re-arrested or otherwise brought to the attention of the
court for misbehaviour.  Since this is an administrative action at a hearing,
not a trial, the defendant has no right to having a jury decide the matter.
It is also unclear if there is any mechanism to "appeal" such an 
administrative action since there was no "conviction".  The man also lost
his permit and certainly cannot reapply for one year since charges are 
still technically pending against him.  The part about the destruction of
the gun intrigues me since a "continuance wihtout a finding" implies the
possibility of reinstatement of the charges which would certainly need
the gun as evidence.

Basically, the judge stuck it to the defendant as far as she could without
setting the stage for review by a higher court.

Pices of advice I offer in the NRA personal protection course at the 
local club :  Never position your permit so that someone can see it when
your open your wallet/purse/whatever.  It is the same as semi publically 
announcing you carry every time you make a purchase, show id, etc.

I think there is a natural tendancy for people who have gone thru the
hassle of getting a gun permit to be proud of their accomplishment and
flaunt it - it seems to get the most "visible" wallet position an
inordinate percentage of the time.  (Likewise with "police officer" 
id's most cops are issued).

There is indeed benefit in getting lost in a crowd of one.

                                        rob b.
                                        rboudrie@chpc.org







Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:25654 talk.politics.drugs:8049 sci.psychology:4862
From: hruo@ncrclm.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM (Hiro Ruo)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: The basic problem with anti-gun nuts.
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:21:58 GMT
Organization: NCR E&M CLEMSON Liberty, SC

<1992Dec8.234524.6169@henson.cc.wwu.edu> <sDZJVB1w164w@upchrch.UUCP>
<1992Dec11.235902.24295@kpc.com> <1992Dec17.200650.18364@mixcom.com>
<1h50plINN8mu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Reply-To: hruo@ncrclm.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM (Hiro Ruo)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: NCR E&M CLEMSON Liberty, SC
Keywords: 

i would tend to disagree that people tend to afflict violence/crime on people
outside their ethnicity.  this does NOT account for the FACT that most crimes
committed by an african-american are on other african-americans.  and a LOT of

hiro.ruo@clemsonsc.ncr.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Race classification on 4473
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:46:33 GMT

	Having read all of this, and having spend time in the
service of Uncle Sam, I can relate ths following:  A friend of mine,
having a Top Secret (not *that* big a deal) clearance, filled in the
form.  Under religion, he put in "Ronald Reagan Carl Seigan San Diegan
Pagan, but on Tuesday's I worship Israel's Began."  He got the clearance.

	Maybe you have to make it particularly obtuse?

< 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 >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs,sci.psychology
From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk)
Subject: Re: The basic problem with anti-gun nuts.
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:26:03 GMT

In article <1h50plINN8mu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio) writes:
>
>In a previous article, smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) says:
>
>>Newfoundland has one of the highest umemployment rates in Canada and the US.
>>I think it's greater than 20%.  It probably also has a low crime rate which
>>is another rebuttal that crime is caused by poverty.
>
>   What studies have been done on the correlation between racial/ethnic 
>integration and crime?   It might seem that people would be more willing
>to perpetrate crimes on "outsiders" to their ethnic group than on people
>they identify with more.   Given this, a region or area with more of a mix
>might have more crime than otherwise.
>
>   Any ideas?
>
>Jim Del Vecchio

Two interesting notes:

A few years ago, some Harvard sociologists published the results of a
long-term study of the relationship between crime rates and unemployment.
It seems that this relationship was often supported with statistics about
prison populations, which showed a very high correlation.  The Harvard
folks found that most of that correlation was due to sentencing rates;
judges were more likely to sentence an unemployed convict to prison, and
more convicts were unemployed in times of high unemployment!

Secondly, most inner-city crime victimizes the perpetrator's own community.
Most violence among inner-city blacks, for example, is directed against
other inner-city blacks.
-- 
Mark A. Fulk			University of Rochester
Computer Science Department	fulk@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: The Knee Jerks in MA
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:29:08 GMT

Sean;

You failed to take a couple of things into account.

>%   If one human is intent on killing another, don't you agree they just might
>%   keep trying until they succeed?  If you block one of their routes to success
>%   does that mean you stopped them?  Just what can you do to stop someone
>%   from killing you anyway?  Deny them access to guns?  You're trying to solve
>%   the symptom, not the disease.
>
>No just lower proabilities. If a person wanted to kill me say with a
>machete and I see him coming I can get away. Bullets run faster than
>people. Guns are more effective at killing than other weapons.
>Real conversation stoppers.

Not 100% true. Guns are one of the most effective selective defense
weapons (selective in that you can limit the effect to the target).
However there are other weapons that are just as deadly if not more
so. A crossbow or even a good hunting bow is very deadly with reasonable
range. Fire bombs are very effective as an offensive weapon especially
for the nut case mass murders. Guns do often have advantages in logistics
of course but if I were of a mind to commit a murder (esp. random ones
such as in the MA case) I could easily do the job with any number of
homemade weapons. Or I could poison folks in the lunch room.

>
>If I walk around with gun , visibly displayed and others do likewise
>than some homicidal asshole is going to think twice about wanton

True and concealed carry by any substantial number of citizen could
be an even more effective deterrant(sp?) since the perp has to guess
if anyone around (victim and bystanders) are armed. Now days in many
places the criminal is assured of a safe work environment so to speak.

>firing for he just might be shot before he shoots anyone.
>Again the probability is lowered.


>
>Armed camp society or reduction of availability. Take your pick.

To me an armed camp (i.e. citizens are allowed to arm themselves) would
be fine. Of course to me the term armed camp is a more sinister thing like
a bunch of unarmed citizens being controlled by armed police or military
force. Kind of like DC or NYC.

Reduction of availability even if possible (c.f. Zip Guns and black market
guns) would not help and would probably make the situation worse.

>The current situation is unacceptable.

Correct. Citizens need to have their right to bear arms restored. Even
a 10% legally armed population should drasticly limit violent crime
esp. WRT repeat offenders.

>
>
>-sjm

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: The War On Drugs and the National Guard
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:32:29 GMT

An excellent article, passed along.  I wish to address only one part
of it:

   Guardsmen in Title 32 status can undertake vehicle searches,
   searches of buildings, and can enter private property without any
   sort of search warrant or any other legal permission.  The only
   authorization a Guardsman on Active Duty for Special Work status
   needs to search anything is the permission of his or her immediate
   commander, i.e. the officer in charge of the group at the time.
   (National Guard Regulation 584-3, Section II, page 6)

Has this been tested in court?  If so, can anyone provide any
citations?  A National Guard Regulation taking precedence over the
Constitution?  What gives?

If this is indeed the present situation, then it is a VERY scary one.
Constitution?  What Constitution?

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: Chris_Tavares@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Kleck, Social Problems
Date: 25 Dec 92 00:21:03 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: m14.sw.stratus.com

I can't find anywhere online the text of Kleck's "Guns and Self Defense: 
Crime Control through the Use of Force in the Private Sector" (35 Social 
Problems 1 (1988)).  The file "resistance" in the FTP archives that claims to 
be "extracts" is more like a summary, plus some tables out of a completely 
different publication. 

Does anyone have this online anywhere?  Could you send it to me?  I am 
debating a fellow on Compuserve on some of the basic statistics from this 
paper, and need to understand some details.  The relevant text of our 
discussion follows. 

 >>Look, "an estimated 1,000,000 times each year" means (assuming that each 
 "private citizen" is only stopping one crime a year) that one in 300 people 
 in the States (actually, a far higher percentage, since I don't think many 
 children are "stopping crimes") is stopping a crime a year with guns. 
 Somewhere in this country, people must be *really* busy stopping crimes.<< 

 Why should an unequal distribution be counter-intuitive?  Some of us live in 
 Helena, and some of us live in Los Angeles.  Some of us work in cosmetic labs 
 and college offices, and some of us work in taverns or behind the counter at 
 Quickie-Mart. 

 But that's not a factually based response, so I'll get back to you when I've 
 reviewed the source document. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns