HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjp@austin.ibm.com  (Michael J. Phelps)
Subject: Re: Simon's Rock College shooting info
Originator: mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 11:50:26 GMT
Reply-To: mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps)
Organization: IBM Kingston NY


By the way, the UPI news wire has recently reported that the 
school definitly knew that Wayne Lo had ammunition - and did 
nothing about it.  

Apparently he also had told other students that he planned to
"get a gun and start shooting people".

It sounds as if the college ignored the problem.  
-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Downside to FFL?
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 16:52:17 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
Distribution: usa

matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (William E. Sadler) writes:


>So, what does the last sentence mean?  Lets see if I can summarize.  If you are
>a FFL, you can have your own collection.  Don't mess w/ us by trying to 
>sell guns to yourself to avoide the paper trace.  We consider transfer from
>inventory to you to another person within 1 year a scam.  Lastly, even if you
>own it for more than 1 year, keep a record anyway.

>Any other interpretations?


Your interpretation works for the person who owns a gun store.  His 
personal, at home collection is separate from his store inventory and
may be handled like any other private collection.  HOWEVER, this does
not apply to a home "store" FFL holder since the entire facility is
considered to be the "store" for BATF purposes.  

I believe this is no different than if the store owner takes his personal
gun to the store for storage, in which instance he would have to log 
the weapon in and out. At least this is how my friend the 'Smithy 
operates his place.

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.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:25533 talk.politics.drugs:8030
From: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Guns and Age
Date: 21 Dec 1992 18:58:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) says:

>        That's the theory anyway.  There's a good argument to be made for
>restrictions on minors, but I really don't see one for the 18 vs. 21
>gap.

	As a minor, you are not a "full" citizen, with all the rights
that go along with it.  While the cutoff age is arbitrary, it does make
sense to make such a distinction.  I've heard people argue that the voting
age should be lower, 12 or 16 years I think (this was on NPR, btw.  I 
thought it was rather funny.  It seemed like a desperate plan to get more
Demo voters).  The 18-21 gap seems like a flaw to me.  I think there should
be a clean cuttoff.    20 yrs seems like a reasonable compromise, for the
"age of full responsibility", voting, buying alcohol, owning guns, etc.
20 seems in some ways better than 21 because it is a turning point: the 
teenage years are behind you.   24 would also be ok, but 25 would be an 
outrageous tyrany.  8^)

	At pre 21 it seemed dumb that buying alcohol was illegal, though
I had little interest in it.  Now that I'm past that, the "unfairness"
of the restriction doesn't bother me at all.  I don't  care.
You don't like it kids?  Tough, get old. 8^).   

	Though many 18 year olds would dissagree with this, there is
some, often a great deal of, maturing that takes place beetween 18 and 21.
I know I was a different person at 18 than I was at 21.

	I think part of the reasoning of the "no pistols at 18" rule is 
that many (most?) 18 year olds still live in the teenage world.  (ie don't 
appreciate the consequences of making straw man sales to their little 
friends, still have the "pack" mentality, are not mature in their thinking:
less respect for laws [what me worry? I'm too smart to be caught], poorer
judgement over what is or is not really a situation that requires lethal 
force*. etc etc.)   Some 21 year olds still do, but you've gotta cut it off 
somewhere.  ;^)		Ditto for the "no alcohol sales at 18" rules.

* "but judge, I had to go pop him.  He called me up and threatened my
life: I had no choice!"

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Effectiveness of gun control
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:57:47 GMT

>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"

Good start - lie in the title.  It isn't restrictive licensing; it is
a ban with a grandfather provision.

>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.

Actually, they didn't.

>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.

Note that they ignored population changes; including them almost
completely accounts for the observed difference.  (The interval used
also excludes a rather extreme post-law murder increase.)  Moreover,
the data set doesn't differentiate between justifiable homicide and
murder.  There is a social benefit to reducing the latter; it appears
that the population-adjusted difference observed is due entirely
to the former.

Moreover, the trend BEFORE the law was a decrease in
population-adjusted murder rates, yet the model used assumes that it
was constant.  Comparing the average of a declining series with that
of a mildly increasing average that starts at the end point of the
decline is dishonest at best.

>or suicides committed by other means, nor were there similar
>reductions in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and
>Virginia.

Actually, on a population-adjusted basis, there were.  Note that other
jurisdictions that are comparable (Virginia and Maryland aren't) to DC
did better in the post-law period than DC did, and they didn't have
the law.  So much for the effects of the law....

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lydic@ka8lvz.uucp (lydic)
Subject: Re: Busted: Harry Connick Jr. in Illinois
Organization: organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 05:01:11 GMT

In article <csjohn.725587679@watson.mtsu.edu> csjohn@watson.mtsu.edu (J Wallace) writes:
>Did you hear about Harry Connick Jr. getting arrested in an
>Illinois airport for trying to bring an unloaded 9mm pistol that
>he had received as a Christmas present home with him in his overnight
>bag?  This is no joke, and they are after him big time.  He didn't even
>try to sneak it onto the plane!  He went up to an airport security dick
>and asked him if he could bring it home with him on the plane.  What
>a mistake.  He was arrested, spent the night in jail, and is facing

   My understanding (from our local news, for what that's worth) was that he
   tried to enter the secure area of the airport with the gun in carry on
   luggage.  If true, that act constitutes a federal felony. PERIOD.

   -.. .

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

   "We live beyond our means, on other peoples dreams, and that's succeeding"
   Janis Ian 'Between the lines'
   ... -.-
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 31 Dec 1992 20:05:04 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> To have a handgun in your home, you can
> also apply for a Sporting license.  This allows the right to buy 
> handguns and ammunition, keep them in your home, and carry them to
> "sporting events" unloaded in the trunk of your car.  They probably
> only turn people down for this license if they have a felony arrest
> record.

Or can't pass a written test, or a shooting test, or can't get letters 
of recommendation from three other citizens, or doesn't belong to a
bona-fide sporting club ($100-$200/year).

My wife is stalled on her permit because all of the people she's known
for any length of time in the area are anti-gun.

> The police would like to know who has guns.

Probably so; but since having a gun isn't a crime, it's frankly none
of their damn business.

> In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current laws
> that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many parents are
> concerned that it has become fashionable for junior high students to
> carry concealed weapons.

Really.  I was under the impression that in Arizona it's not legal to
carry a weapon concealed at all.  Check your facts.

> >BTW - MA's permit system and "mandatory jail time for unlicensed
> >carry" is one of the great gun control failures.  It doesn't restrict
> >anyone worth restricting and merely provides an excuse for a lot of
> >illegal searches.
> 
> It is a failure, but I don't know that there is a high rate of illegal
> searches.

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
(although the police can then revoke your license).  Despite this, the
judge ignored the law and convicted the man.  Also, they did not return
the pistol to the mother, another objective violation of the law.

That's just the most recent one I know of.

> How does a person who would endure hardship by being robbed of $10
> acquire a gun.  I own several guns, and they all cost $200+.

Well then, better make sure no Massachusetts judge gets her hands on them.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: A thought about fully automatic weapons...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:11:32 GMT

In article <102969@netnews.upenn.edu> yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes:
>
>I have come to question the veracity of the statements which purport to
>say that fully automatic weapons are not really all that useful.  I speak
>not from experience but from other data points.

No one says full auto weapons are not useful.  Most people have been
saying that for a civilian, fully automatic fire is not generally
tactically practical for self-defense.  This, of course, ignores crowd
scenarios,  and rampaging government scenarios.  Militarily,
suppressive fire is *very* important, and full auto weapons are highly
useful.  They become a tactical liability when issued to every common
foot soldier who has a minimum of training though, for many reasons
previously pointed out.  Don't confuse limited use with useless.

>First of all, I note that the military has not yet decided to forsake
>automatic weapons in favor of semi-automatic weapons.  Could it be that
>short bursts are indeed useful?  I note that the M-16 is capable of
>3 shot bursts.

A three round burst is a good compromise because it limits how much a
soldier can freeze in full auto mode and empty his mag.  Very very
wasteful as a portable full auto weapon is very difficult to aim, and
ammo is heavy.

>Second, I take notice the arguments posed on rec.radio.cb and
>rec.radio.amateur.misc  For those of you who are not familiar with current
>FCC rules, CB's are restricted to 4watts.  Amateur radios (aka ham radios)
>can transmit as much as 1500watts.  In this analogy, CB's are the semi
>automatic weapons and Amateur radios are the fully automatic weapons.

No, that's an apples and oranges comparison.  A closer analogy is that
CBs are limited to .22lr, while hams can go from there all the way up
to .50cal BMG.  Your comparison was comparing power to mode, it would
make as much sense as saying that CBs are only limited to 4 watts
while hams can transmit packet.  No logic.


-- 
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: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: reduction of availability
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:51:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.003958.4019@nas.nasa.gov> proett@tailspin.nas.nasa.gov (Thomas M. Proett) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.225051.7738@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> Note the assumption that reduction of availability will affect
>> the right people.  Considering that it hasn't anywhere else ....
>
>This may be explained in a FAQ or something, but I have not seen it so...
>Why is it assumed that making guns less easy to obtain will not "affect
>the right people"?

Because it hasn't.  There's been plenty of research on the subject.
Maybe I meant some of the words I used in my message....

(Those of you interested in "causes" might consider that the US has a
healthy smuggling industry.  It can easily supply the "right" people.
We know that by looking at the demand and the supply capacity.  Then
there's the manufacturing angle.)

>			Someone posted a transcription of a poster that
>gave statistics about the number of murders done in various countries
>where guns are not generally available and then showed the number for
>the US.  The US had a gigantic number in proportion to the rest.

So?  Look at the pre-control stats in those countries, and you find
that gun control doesn't explain the differences unless you want to
assume that its effects predate its enactment.

That poster is an example of data selection.  It only includes ONE
high crime country.  There are others, and they have gun control.
(Gun control didn't help them either.)  Since the poster excludes
counter-examples....

>Doesn't this show some correlation to "more guns" ==> "more murder"?

NYC, Chicago, and DC have about 20% of the US murders yet only 6% of
the US population and an even smaller fraction of the US guns.
Doesn't that show a strong US correlation to "fewer guns" ==> "less
murder"?  What?  There are other important factors?  I agree - so
let's look at them and find out how large they are.

There has been some research done on the subject.  One study found
that gun control didn't help in the UK.  Another, done by the Canadian
govt, found that gun control didn't help there either.  (A second
study did manage to find some factors that seemed correlate with
Canada's crime/murder rate; gun control wasn't one of them.)  Yet
another found that after accounting for factors that we know affect
crime, the murder rate in Canada is not significantly higher than that
in the US.

Note that there are some interesting differences between countries.
For example, crime rates in the US are affected by population density.
(It isn't a good correlation, as the by-block murder "density" of
Chicago shows.)  They aren't in Canada.  We know that Americans
smuggle guns, so if you believe (despite the data) that Canadian gun
control works, you've got to assume that Canadians don't smuggle guns.

Within the US we can see the same sorts of things.  It's amazing how
much living conditions affect crime and how little gun control does.

-andy
--
From:  (MJ)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Traveling with a gun
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:13:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec29.183250.25517@samba.oit.unc.edu>, rdrob@med.unc.edu
(Ricky Roberson) wrote:
> 
> Hi folks!  Just ran across this group, and hope I can find some help here.
> Can anyone tell me the *current* laws concerning carrying a weapon in a
> vehicle.  Does it vary from state to state?  I know it can't be concealed,
> but does it have to be registered?  Could you borrow your friend's gun and
> carry it on the seat next to you?  I'm going on a trip soon, and plan on
> carrying a handgun for personal protection.  I'll be traveling through
> several states.  
> 
> Any help would be appreciated.

Many state's will prohibit a non-resident's possession of a handgun.  It's
highly unlikely your route will take you through nothing but "friendly"
states.  You should contact each state's attorney general's office for
information regarding their laws.  A short, unloaded shotgun in a locked
case might get by a few more states but not all of them.  Mace / Pepper Gas
is another option.  What a wonderful country we live in

MJ

[As if you didn't already know, my opinions are my own and not my
company's.]
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: What to do when stopped by the police
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:05:02 GMT
Organization: The Cat Factory

In article <9212161556.AA01475@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:

}On the same note however, what does the law say about this?  If
}someone gets out of their car and refuses to get back in when told
}to do so.  What happens when someone responds with, "I'll stand
}anywhere I damn well please".  ...
}... Could You be
}charged with a crime? (Failure to obey a police officer? Obstruction
}of a police investigation?)
}
}I'm not recommending this approach, but am just wondering how much
}authority the police really have ...

When the police pull you over you are under arrest.  Giving them a hard
time and/or failing to obey orders constitutes resisting arrest.

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

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                Do not meddle in the affairs of
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483  dragons, for you are crunchy
Santa Monica, CA  90405                        and go well with ketchup.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Toy guns
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:53:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.212607.9287@linus.mitre.org>
jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) writes:

>I am essentially a civil libertarian with anarchistic leanings so my
>stance on weapons should be pretty easy to figure out.  However, I
>feel that toy weapons are not a good thing.  Many of my friends are
>surprized by this and perhaps rightfully so.  But they are even more
>amazed when I tell them that I would prefer to give a youth a real
>weapon (with the proper attention to maturity, training, etc.).
>
>How say you all?

       Give?  No.  Teach to use safely and respect under close supervision,
yes.  (Also depending on what you call "youth."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: ALERT! Anti-gun meeting in NoVA
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:38:07 GMT

In article <1h2go0INN8a5@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com
(Jim De Arras) writes:

> It's been my experence that in general, the .edu'ers let their profs think for  
> them.  And of course, the profs don't think.  They teach.

The real problem in the land of ".edu" is that many profs feel that they
should not only teach "how to think", but "what to think".  The _first_
problem the profs have is assuming that they should _teach_ at all!
Likewise, many young scholars attend, and _expect_ their profs to teach....

Universities are places for scholars to study; The attendees need to break
out out the thought pattern that makes them a "student", at least in the
sense that they existed for the previous 13 years....

Who was it that said "When you teach a child something, you prevent him
from learning it."?

-- 
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
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 18:04:32 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <1993Jan1.003233.6757@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>[While Kelly doesn't know about it, there is a lot of research on gun
> control.  See Kleck's Point Blank for far more info than you'll ever
> need.]
>
>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?

I believe there is some benefit in determining if a person is
psychologically able to take on the responsibility of owning
a handgun.

>>I maintain that I wouldn't want to live in a state like that, as it
>>would rapidly turn into a scenario like Beirut.
>
>Yet, the states where one can just walk in and buy a gun don't have
>much crime - they're less like Beirut* than Boston is.  If guns are
>the problem, how come the problems are where the guns aren't?

Most of the gunshots that are fired in Boston are crack dealers
shooting at other crack dealers.

>We happen to know that criminals don't acquire guns at gun stores.
>(It's easy enough to do the relevant research.)  Therefore, controls
>on stores are, at best, like looking for your keys under a street
>light when you know that you lost them somewhere else.  Sure the light
>is good there, but you're wasting your time.
>
>We can't win a gun war any more than we can win a drug war.  How many
>people should we jail to satisfy Kelly's bigotry?  (BTW - He's also
>misstated the way MA's gun laws work for honest law-abiding people.)

Apparently, the appeal process has changed over the last decade.  It's
been a long time since anyone I know had to go through it.

You seem to imply that if EVERYONE had a gun, there would be no crime
and no shots fired.

And, of course, untrained idiots who bought a gun at K-Mart would never
hurt themselves or anyone else by mistake.

And your belief that no one legally buys a gun and then does something
illegal with it is ridiculous.  Read a newspaper.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns