HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Subject: Re: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 00:41:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.175025.173@lrc.edu> blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:
>Man is inherently wicked and prone to sudden acts of random violence against
>his neighbor...a puny wimp with a small dick feels macho when he has a steel
>rod that can spit fire and deal death in his hands.

A gun makes the small man equal to the big bully

  It takes *more* guts to
>love your neighbor than 2 pull the trigger and end his life in a splattering
>of blood and spongy grey matter. A smoking hole in a shattered skull is *no*
>way to solve diplomatic problems. Most of your gun-owners have no brains and
>therefore are incapable of settling their differences with another using (of
>all things!) civilized discussion.

If everyone was armed, everyone would be more polite.

 They'd rather blow the opposing fucker a-
>way and end the matter right then and their. They do love to play Rambo with
>their big guns. If only their brains were that size. Not to mention genital-
>reproductive organs. If we all discarded our guns & got rid of all our bombs
>and disposed of every stupid weapon we own we'd get along *much* better with
>each other. Perhaps we'd even have peace, love & happiness around the world.
>
>Besides...flowers are a *lot* nicer than guns.
>
>So get rid of yours today.
>
>Peace!
Peace is maintained by vigilance!

If your a female you are welcome to check my parts for size.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Dick Winningstad                                                    +
+                    Italian Wines are Fine                          +
+          I'd rather be on a Moto Guzzi in eastern Oregon.          +
+          Fourth gear curves at 7000 RPM are the greatest!          +
+dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Ban the Killer of 300,000
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:31:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.041125.16249@trl.oz.au>, djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul16.205709.10363@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
|> >
|> >There are very few good reasons to shoot to kill, and none come up in
|> >civilian use.  (Maybe there are some in judicial or military use, but
|> >that's not relevant in this discussion.)  There are plenty of good
|> >reasons to use potentially deadly force to STOP someone.  Stopping
|> >them may well result in their death, but that wasn't the purpose,
|> >stopping them was.
|> >
|> >Think about the differences between shoot to kill and shoot to stop
|> >and why they're relevant.
|> >
|> 
|> Agreed, but how many of the MILLIONS of gun owners in the US have the training
|> to know the difference and the skill to stop without killing in a wide 
|> variety of situations with any or all of their weapons. Not many I guess.
|> 
|> DJ...
|> 

That is not even as issue. Whether the perp dies is not relevent. You
don't try to shoot to stop without killing. You shoot to stop period.
The chips then fall where they may. Where do you get the idea that a
victim has a responsibility to ensure (or try to) the safty of the perp?

The skill needed is the skill to stop. That means...

1. Identify your target.
2. Be able to hit what you aim at.
3. Aim for the appropriate spot.
	a) Center of the chest first.
	b) If that fails a head shot may be worth a try considering
	   the possibility of body armor.

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: "Direct" methods of crime control
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 12:58:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.211525.14060@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:

>In article <1992Jul24.144214.28183@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>
>>The issue of gun control legislation is an attempt at a direct
>>method of controlling crime

>This is some new meaning of the word "direct" with which I'm not familiar,
>since guns do not commit crimes, nor are they necessary to commit them, nor
>are the vast majority of guns ever used in crimes.  Just what does "direct"
>mean to you?

A "direct" method would be one that attacks the tools of crime or the 
situation that allows it, rather than root causes.

"Direct" crime control laws include gun control, restricted access to 
locksmith's tools, requiring increased lighting outside homes, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx11.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:44:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.012230.23388@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  
dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.233808.11783@ms.uky.edu> uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu  
(robert i kesten) writes:
> >the 43-1 ratio is based on King County (Seattle) Washington
> >over a period of about 5 years.  It is simply a direct comparison
> >of with-gun suicides, criminal homicides and accidental deaths
> >in homes compared to with-gun legal defensive homicides in homes.
> >
> >The authors found the following ratio: ~43-1
> >of the 43:  37 were suicides, 4.6 were homicides, and
> >1.3 were accidents.
> >
> This is a good point - that the total gun fatalities are a function of 
> suicides, homicides, and accidents (with some accidents really
> being suicides, perhaps?).  But to extend the data from Seattle
> as representative of the entire U.S. is dubious.  The points
> about deterrent values of firearms not being judged by corpses
> and the makeup of those "acquaintance" murders stand.  

Someone posted (perhaps not in this forum?) that about 20-25%
of "accidental" shooting deaths are (probably) really suicides
that the local police / coroner list as accidental for the
benefit of the family.  Situations where the victim had the
barrel pressed against his tonsils and the local coroner 
puts "accidental shooting while cleaning gun" on the death
certificate are apparently not unheard of.

The other points about deterrent values are well made.

Robert K.
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:00:46 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY


  Based on the fact the gun crime rate is something in the order of
three times higher in states with gun control laws than in states where
guns can be purchased freely, I find it hard to draw any conclusion
other than "gun control doesn't work."

  Right now in Massachusetts the penalty for having a handgun without a
license is one year in jail, even though no other crime is committed or
contemplated. That's significantly longer than the minimum for posession
of drugs, or in practice for selling drugs, since the gun charge can't
be plea bargained, suspended, or reduced. It's far more than first
offense burglary or simple assult.

  Does that sound remotely rational in terms of making the penalty fit
the crime?
-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
	It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise rational people, able to
	understand calculus, compound interest, and the income tax form, can
	continue to believe that poker is a game of chance.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: A Proposed FAQ For This Newsgroup...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 07:10:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.222634.11983@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com 
(Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>Talk.politics.guns is not a history book.  It is a DEBATE newsgroup.
>Debate is caused by people with opposing viewpoints presenting
>evidence, arguing, bickering, and beating each other over the head
>with heavy blunt objects.  If you deny your opposition the chance to
>speak, there's no debate left.  What's the fun of that?  :-)

>Seriously, now: people who are confident they are right can afford
>a fair, factual debate -- they know that the facts will support them
>in the end.  The only people who feel the need to silence the
>opposition are the ones who fear the truth.  If the gun control
>advocates are wrong, *prove it* by making your FAQ better than
>theirs... not by silencing them.

"Silencing them"?  Where did you come up with that?  The post I was
responding to said something to the effect of "let's have two FAQ's".
My response was that I'm NOT going to help or support a FAQ for the
anti-gun position.  I asserted that I would NOT contribute to someone
else's effort to disarm me.  I DID NOT, however, say I wanted to forcibly
silence anyone.  My response was one of disgust, and refusal to help--I am
not on a crusade to forcibly censor other viewpoints.  If the anti's want
to create a FAQ, let them.  I'll have no part of it.  What "miffed" me
was that the pro-gunners seemed so willing to help those opposed to them.

>Let them have their FAQ.

Thanks for the power trip, but I'm really in no position to determine
who can post to the net.  Contrary to the rantings of my detractors,
I'm no longer "The Terminator," although it looks like that genie
won't go back in the bottle.


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

   "Laws against the carrying of weapons disarm only the law-abiding."
   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Stop
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:56:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.175129.4807@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
>an attack with requiring followup shots.
           ^^^^
Oops.  That should say "without."

Drew 
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: "Assault Weapons"
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:11:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.195818.3033@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:

>I somehow don't think that many contibutors here want to go off to join
>the army to play with guns.

None of us "play" with guns.  Firearms are not toys.


>Assault rifles are the weapon of the heavy duty psycho or major league
>crook or some jerk playing at being one. 

This is a media-caused fallacy.  According the BATF, "Assault weapons" play 
a part in less than 5% of crimes.

>So? I agree that the State of California should not have discriminated
>between them, they should have banned the lot.

Can't do that.  Unconstitutional.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: UC Berkeley Police Rifles? (Was Re: Hate Speech Okay, says ...) 
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:01:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.142947.23811@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> ...  if you go to Berkeley
>now, you will find that the campus policecars come equipped with high
>powered rifles.   ...

  I can imagine shotguns in police cars, but is this comment about
"high powered rifles" based in fact?

--henry schaffer
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Views of Bush and Clinton
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:37:22 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <9207241314.AA07631@Early-Bird.Think.COM> rpalmer@Think.COM (Ralph Palmer) writes:

#Could someone please post the views of the political candidates on
#gun control issues.  In keeping with the charter of rec.guns please
#keep the posts factual and non emotional.  

#The Boston Globe reported today that Clinton supports gun ownership for
#"hunting rifles", favors the Brady Bill and made some noise on a  magazine
#limit.  Could someone please post more details. 

#                                       Ralph Palmer
#                                       rpalmer@think.com

#From what I know:

George Bush:  Pays lip service to gun rights, and promised no new gun
laws along with no new taxes.  In reality, and this is backed up by
several "form letters" from the White House, he sees gun rights as
a political football.  He'll sell them to the Democrats for a broader
death penalty and easing of the exclusionary rule for "good faith" searches
and seizures.

Dan Quayle:  Probably the same.

Bill Clinton:  Big "resonable restrictions" guy.  Also makes a lot of noise
about "gun owner's protection."  He stands fully behind the Democratic
plank which says very little beyond "what we've got, plus more and 
nationally."

Al Gore:  'Bout the same as Bill Clinton, though I think he takes a little 
tougher stance on hunting, though I have no hard evidence.  He used to be
against gun control until he ran for the Senate and acquired a state-wide
constituency.

The Libertarians totally oppose gun control, and I don't know about any of 
the other candidates/parties.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 04:42:50 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In article <5166@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul25.232111.18191@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>> While I'm somewhat sympathetic to a universal RKBA, I don't believe the 2nd 
>>> establishes any such thing. Propose a new amendment if you want...
>>
>>Luckily the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and has regularly and 
>>consistently for over 200 years.

>I don't think that's strictly true.  I believe that more modern
>Supreme Courts have held (at least once) that the 'militia' clause
>does indeed restrict, and that the National Guard meets that -- hence
>there is no guaranteed right for anyone else to have weapons.

 The only case that is even vaguely similar to what you say was US v. Miller
(1938) which said that everyone not in the army or government is part
of the militia (males 17-45 specifically, agreeing with the old definition
of Militia) and that any weapon that is useful to a militia is protected.
The defendant jumped bail so wasn't present, which is why the court
wasn't made aware that short barrelled shotguns are in common use in
the armed forces so they decided it wasn't a militia weapon.

 The National Guard is not the militia referenced in the 2nd. It didn't
exist until many many years afterward, and is under the direct control
of the federal government at the saying of a word. 

>That is, after all, why waiting periods, etc., are constitutional.  Or
>so the claim goes.

 They are not, but haven't been tried at the SC level. The court won't
hear the cases so hasn't ruled on one in a long time. Any time the
second is mentioned in other decisions it has been affirmed as an
individual right (like the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc). Sorry, Clinton and his
"ban handguns for 5 years" idea just won't fly...

-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

        Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:51:02 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
>
>	I guess this buy-back means WA doesn't have a waiting period. 
>   Well, that is a good sign at least.

Unfortunately not correct.  Washington state has a five-day waiting
period, which is waived for anyone who has a concealed weapons
permit.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:44:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.195818.3033@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de  
(Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
> Assault rifles are the weapon of the heavy duty psycho or major league
> crook or some jerk playing at being one.

	I won't address the military implications of this
	statement.  I will mention that the first person
	I think of off-hand as to owning an "assault
	rifle" is a friend who is a Fish and Wilflife Officer
	and owns a Chinese semi-auto AK-47 knockoff.

	I guess those psychos and major league crooks 
	love to enforce the game laws and teach conservation
	to schoolchildren.

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: NFA34 (Was: A Proposed FAQ For This Newsgroup...)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:47:59 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul20154744@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

><In article <archer.89@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
><   In article <1992Jul17.164512.28901@hawkmoon.mn.org> gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray) writes:

>[...]

><>The fiction that the Mafia violence caused NFA 34 and that
><>NFA 34 reduced criminal use of firearms or any kind is a triumph of the
><>antigun forces.

><True.  My position, which may be flawed, is that NFA 34 was in response to 
><mob violence, and FAILED.

>       I would refine it slightly thusly: NFA 34 was a response
>       to a PERCEPTION of what tools mobsters were abusing, fanned
>       by biased news coverage. 
>	
>       In support of the above statement, note that while the 
>       perception of the Thompson SMG ("Tommy Gun") as a mobster
>       weapon was widespread, the actual weapons captured were
>       more usually either short-barreled shotguns or Browning
>       Automatic Rifles (BAR's). Nit-picking or fact-checking?
>       Take your choice.

I can accept all of the above.  My familiarity with the antecedants of NFA '
34 are all heresay.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: davebe@vicenza.EBay.Sun.COM (David Beattie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:42:11 GMT
Reply-To: davebe@vicenza.EBay.Sun.COM
Distribution: world
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: vicenza.ebay.sun.com

In article 2020@tc.fluke.COM, ness@tc.fluke.COM (Jerry Ness) writes:
<I just picked up on this waiting period thread so...
<
<I have never ever needed to buy a gun of any kind RIGHT NOW!!
<
<A lengthy waiting period to do a background check or just for 
<a 'cooling off' period would certainly not infringe on my rights
<or the rights of anyone I know. 
<
<Plan ahead.

	What if the "gun-control" types follow your line of reasoning and decide
to extend the waiting period to 6 months, a year, a decade, etc.  Would you then
conclude that the waiting period "...would certainly not infringe on my rights
or the rights of anyone I know"?  Would you then plan up to 10 years ahead?

	(rest of article deleted)

---
   davebe@vicenza.ebay.sun.com       or       David.Beattie@Ebay.Sun.Com
                   EBay!David.Beattie@Sun.COM (works for most)
     Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get me!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: schow@sol.UVic.CA (Stirling Chow)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 01:29:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.155407.11050@sol.UVic.CA> schow@sol.UVic.CA (Stirling Chow) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.195003.19727@rice.edu> kossack@qvi.com writes:
>>   obtain firearms that are not registered to you.  To what use 
>>   those firearms will be put after being "destroyed" is another 
>>   matter entirely.  Just to be on the safe side, bring along a 
>>
>>-- 
>> Jordan M Kossack  |  "Don't dial 911;    
>> kossack@rice.edu  |   Dial M1911A and let it ring seven times." 
>>  +1 713 240 2073  |         -- sybok@m37-332-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
>>  
>
>   As far as I have heard, they are planning to melt-down all the firearms that
>they obtain and create a statue in memory of all those who have died due to
                                                                      ^^^^^^
>firearms.
 ^^^^^^^^^

I apologize, I should have said, "due to people using firearms in an illegal
fashion."  My apologies.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Compromise
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:03:33 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul23101115@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>	So, there are SOME things that cannot be compromised.
>	Would Freeman accept a rollback of the semi-auto import
>	ban if the Kalifornia 15-day waiting period was part
>	of the package? I wouldn't, because the precedent of
>	accepting a Federal waiting period is too high a price
>	to pay; it would absolutely guarantee more trouble down the road.

I don't see the selected semi-auto import ban as a big issue.  (Every
one of the affected guns is being imported again after only cosmetic
changes.)  So, I wouldn't trade much to get rid of it.

However, I would trade a 15 day no loophole national waiting period
(preempting stricter local controls) for a nationwide concealed carry
system that I designed.  I'd do it even if I lived in an area that had
no local controls.

-andy trades things he wants less for things he wants more all the time
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns