HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:28:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <5165@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.051942.22743@athena.mit.edu>, sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>One wonders, then, how you imagine that one (legally) obtains the 
>in-residence handgun in the first place?

That's the catch!  I suspect it was done out of deference to the common law
sacredness of one's home and the desire to grandfather current pistol
owners when the law passed.  (By the way, if you have a LTC, get an FID
too.  If shit ever happens, and you loose your LTC, the FID allows
you to legally keep all your firearms at home.  They could still be
seized by the gummit, but it wouldn't be legal.)
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:05:05 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul22.033734.8117@athena.mit.edu>, sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
> >What I hear then is:
> >
> >1) Instant "Staggers"-type checks are easily defeated through multiple
> >   strawmen.
> >
> >2) Waiting periods may not stop the illegal flow of firearms across state
> >   borders, but might be effective at slowing it down.  But only if applied
> >   to every purchase of a gun (which is how it is usually proposed anyway).
> >
> >3) Criminals have an easy way to obtain firearms from legitimate dealers,
> >   but it's not worth doing anything about.
> >
> >4) In fact, we should just let them buy directly.
> >
> >I can't believe I'm hearing this.
> 
> So what do you propose be done, if anything, about the putative "problem"?

Sorry, that's the wrong attitude.  If I were a gun banner, the solution
would be obvious.  If no guns could be legally sold through these outlets,
criminals couldn't buy them there.  Unfortunately, that's not the solution
you want to hear.  If you don't propose a better solution, it's the one 
you WILL hear.

The theory posted here in the past has been, "Laws against guns don't
work, and besides, most of them already duplicate existing laws that
aren't being enforced."  I hear this particularly about people who
purchase guns in another state.  "There's ALREADY a FEDERAL law against 
that; what good is it to have TWO laws?"  

But now people admit that the existing law is either not being enforced 
or is unenforceable.  If the latter, then maybe another law IS the answer.
(You wanted to hear THAT, didn't you.)  If the former, how should it
be enforced better?
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:56:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Tim:  mail to you bounced.

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
421 Host cs.unsw.oz.au not found for mailer ddn.
550 <lambert@cs.unsw.oz.au>... Host unknown

To: lambert@cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 13:00:30 EDT

> >>>>> On mumble, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) said:
>
> > Fact is, in a study of all Florida rapes over a recent multi-year period,
> > both with armed and unarmed victims, there were NO instances of this ever
> > happening.  While everyone knows it's theoretically possible, it turns
> > out to be unlikely in practice.
>
> Do you have a cite for this?  From a recent Kleck article in Social
> Problems on victim resistance in rapes it would appear that with gun
> resistance is very rare.  The NCS survey showed that in the US it
> occured about 300 times per year.  So, there might only have been
> 50-100 such cases in Florida during the study.  (I don't know the
> population of Florida or how long the study was, so these numbers are
> wild guesses.)

The cite is "Guns, Violence, and the Constitution," by Don Kates,
published by the Pacific Instutite for Public Policy.

Don't forget, Kates was studying FLORIDA, where there were more armed
women in the period of interest than in most other places at any time.

> If something happens 0 times out of 100 occurrences, a 95% confindence
> interval for the underlying probability is 0-4%.

Gee, 0-4% is still damn good in a world with no guarantees.  Given
that the woman would have been raped ANYWAY (OK, so say 95%-98%).

> It seems to me that "gun turned against victim" should be unlikely in
> practice but I don't think that this study seems to prove it.

"Proof" is something like a guarantee -- you'll never really find
either.
-- 

cdt@pdp.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: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:30:07 GMT

>Shotgun licences are quite easy to get provided you have a reasonable
>explanation of what you are going to use it for. The rule for handguns
>is much tougher, basicaly forget it unless you are a member of a gun
>club.
>
>We don't like the idea of loonies with guns.

Where a loony is defined as anyone who doesn't adore Big Brother and
won't bend over so that Authority(tm) can penetrate them up the wazzu.

> [forcible, unwelcomed "outing" deleted] would not be

> in with a chance of getting a gun in the UK.

I AM a member of a bonafide gun club, cretin.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 22:24:42 GMT

lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>>I have no problem with the basic concept in this case -- if a private
>>organization wishes to freely purchase guns from willing sellers, and
>>destroy them, that is entirely their affair.

>Yes, it is entirely their affair; but there is a down side to it.
>The whole point of "buy backs" is to create a media event to show the
>public the evil of weapons and that they should be melted down.  That's

 I'd say it also creates the idea that they are being bought "back",
as if the government sold them to us in the first place. If they
call it just a "gun buy program" rather than trying to add the "back"
in it isn't as big a deal...

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

        Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:50:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.234512.4775@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>
	[snip]

>Most t.p.g. posters would like to see the criminal element in society disarmed,

	True perhaps, but not at the expense of the law abiding citizen.

>so how would "random gun checks" be received in US states? 

	Probably with buckshot.

>I know some would
>say this infringes some right but if you are a law-abiding citizen with a duly
>registered firearm then surely this hassle would be a small price to pay to
>disarm criminals. This would also make GUN CONTROL for law abiding citizens
>unnecessary.

	Nice try, but no cigar, so sorry.

	Isaac Asimov treated this subject rather well in his classic novel
	"I, Robot".  Highly recommended reading.  The chapter in question 
	is the one about the Mayoral elections in which one character, Steven
	Byerley is running for public office and is accused by an opponent of
	being a robot (Robots cannot legally exist freely on earth in the story	and so the opponent want to expose him as a robot).

	Anyhow, Byerley refuses to undergo any tests and does everything and
	anything he can to passively thwart investigations by being 
	noncooperative.  He never stops them from trying, but when it comes
	to some issue that requires his consent, he flatly refuses and the
	authorities are unable to prove anything.  At one point he is x-rayed
	without his consent, but having anticipated such antics on the part
	of the police department, donned x-ray opaque clothing.


	All the while the 'authorities' are telling him that if he has nothing
	to fear that he should just cooperate and help them settle the matter.
	He basically tells them to fuck off, that he has no obligation to aide
	them in their efforts to bring him to harm.
	
	Several other points are made that are IMO quite valid, one of them 
	being that the burden of proof is on the Guv and not on the accused.
	Very good reading and highly recommended.

	-Andy V.
From: @btree.uucp
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: "Cop Killer" and Time-Warner
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:42:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Brooktree Corporation

The media has recently been reporting on the controversy surrounding
the Ice T recording of "Cop Killer" which is being distributed by
Time-Warner.  The law enforcement community is understandably upset
about this recording since the recording advocates killing law
enforcement officers.

Time-Warner publishes a number of periodicals as well as offering
CDs and video tapes.  If you wish to vote with your dollars the
following list of periodicals may be of use to you.

Time Magazine
Sports Illustrated
Sports Illustrated for Kids
Sports Illiustrated Classic
Fortune
People
Southern Living
Money
Entertainment Weekly
Parenting
Baby Talk
Sunset
Health
Martha Stewart Living
Texas Lawyer
American Lawyer

These are all Time-Warner publications.

Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu                       ...!ucsd!btree!hale@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:37:34 GMT

>What I hear then is:
>
>1) Instant "Staggers"-type checks are easily defeated through multiple
>   strawmen.
>
>2) Waiting periods may not stop the illegal flow of firearms across state
>   borders, but might be effective at slowing it down.  But only if applied
>   to every purchase of a gun (which is how it is usually proposed anyway).
>
>3) Criminals have an easy way to obtain firearms from legitimate dealers,
>   but it's not worth doing anything about.
>
>4) In fact, we should just let them buy directly.
>
>I can't believe I'm hearing this.

So what do you propose be done, if anything, about the putative "problem"?
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Date: 26 Jul 92 20:01:47 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Jul23.200555.12604@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>>Good.  Now, everybody anywhere NEAR the Seattle area, grab hold of every non-
>>functional piece of junk you can find and sell it back to them to soak up 
>
>Why would we want to do that?  I have no problem with the basic
>concept in this case -- if a private organization wishes to freely
>purchase guns from willing sellers, and destroy them, that is
>entirely their affair.  

	Look, if some guy offers me $1000 for a car, I'm not going to 
   sell him a $15k car for that price, although I might sell him some 
   $200 junker.  Similarly, if someone offers me $50 for a firearm, I 
   don't see what's wrong with selling them a junker and making a nice 
   profit.  I mean, if they're going to destroy them anyway, I don't 
   have to feel bad about selling them a non-functional junker. 

	I guess this buy-back means WA doesn't have a waiting period. 
   Well, that is a good sign at least.  Just make 'em fill out a 4473   
   in case the firearm somehow ends up on the street.  If the buyback 
   program is on the up-and-up, they'll be happy to help you to CYA.  


-- 
 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)
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Stop
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:40:59 GMT

Hi Drew,

In article <1992Jul22.175129.4807@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:

>I would advise against a pelvic shot, at least as a first try.

Ayoob recommends first making a couple torso shots and then following
up with a pelvic girdle shot.  The way Mr. Perp is going to be a) hurting
from injuries and b) on his butt and less of a threat to you.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Organization: Junior, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:42:44 -0400 
From: Clifford Andrew Erickson <ce0o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: democratic platform

 
On 23-Jul-92 in Re: democratic platform      
user @ucscb.UCSC.EDU writes:
> (stuff deleted)
>OK, let's assume that the abusive spouse already has a weapon, or chooses
>to commit havoc by another means.  This is what police protection and
>injunctions are for.  I'll admit that these methods are not what they
>should be, ......(stuff deleted)

"Not what they should be," gets the understatement of the month
award......... There is no injunction in the world that is going to do a
bit of good when even under the best of conditions it will take at least
five minutes to get a cop to your door and usually a lot longer than
that.  Trust me here, it won't take someone's psyco
ex-husband/boyfriend/etc. five minutes to kick in a door and
beat/stab/strangle/etc. her to death (he doesn't even need to use a
firearm).  

    A couple of months ago in my home state of Massachusetts, a young
woman was killed by her ex-boyfriend who was not only injoined from
approaching her, but had an outstanding arrest warrant that had not been
served. The local police were more than a little slack in their duties
in this case.  Anybody nutty enough to kill someone is going to use a
restraining order to wipe off the bloody knife after the fact.  Everyone
has the right to defend themselves, and unfortuntely sometimes that
entails the taking of another human life.

Just my $0.02;
Cliff Erickson
ce0o@andrew.cmu.edu

From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:31:58 GMT
Subject: Re: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Oops!  Someone must have left their terminal unattended.


David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:06:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.131809.11056@brtph560.bnr.ca> mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030) writes:

[snip]

> but I have also seen people with cars and drivers 
> licenses that I won't ride with. (and they have passed state sponsered
> proficency tests)

I don't consider those "proficiency tests,"  they are just revenue 
generators.  If they were real tests, there's be a lot fewer bad drivers.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:52:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.155102.7833@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>Unfortunately not correct.  Washington state has a five-day waiting
>period, which is waived for anyone who has a concealed weapons
>permit.

	Can an organization get a CCW?  Or does the waiting period not 
   apply to private sales?  In other words, do the smelter folk have to 
   wait five days to take possession of the weapon(s)?  Maybe we should 
   'tip-off' the BATF if the laws are not being followed.  That would 
   be an interesting turn of events, almost like getting "Pool Shooter" 
   Rowan on illegal weapons charges.  :-)  


-- 
 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)
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:18:15 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 

[rest deleted].

Oops.  Left your terminal unattended, did you?  Got to be more careful.

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_ 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18122 alt.politics.clinton:935
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:31:40 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <v3hm39a.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>There are laws on teh books in virtually every state making it illegal
>to use a firearm in a crime. The federal law and many states also have
>laws on the books making it illegal to possess an unregistered machine
>gun, firearm silencer, short barrelled shotgun etc. Why in the world
>do we think that passing additional restrictive legislation will put
>people behind bars when in many cases the laws curretly on the books
>aren't enforeced?
>
>The only explanation for this bizarre situation is that the anti-gunners
>simply want to completely disarm the law abiding American. This is the
>greatest single threat to our liberty as it removes the final
>recall athority from the public. These gun grabbing Democrats have to
>go!
>
Uh, Dick...

I believe Bush (you know, a Republican) supported the adoption of the Brady
Bill last election.

George Lambert
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:19:42 GMT

In article <5101@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.231129.4935@athena.mit.edu>, sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>> Handguns may also be possessed with just the FID card; you just can't
>> carry them with the FID.
>
>This isn't what the gun dealer tells me.  He won't sell one if you don't
>have the carry permit.

The FID allows you to:

    *Purchase* long guns, and ammunition for long guns, and mace.
    *Carry* long guns, and ALL TYPES of ammunition, provided the long 
     guns are unloaded during transport.
    *Possess* long guns, *handguns*, and ammunition of all types IN
     YOUR PLACE OF LEGAL RESIDENCE or in your place of legal business.

The LTC allows you to:

    *Purchase* handguns, and ammunition for handguns.
    *Carry* handguns throughout the commonwealth, except for
     public schools and college campuses, which require an additional
     permit.  Nothing in the law says it must be unloaded or whether
     it must be concealed or not.

Notes:

  1. You can legally possess a handgun in your house or your family
     business with merely an FID card.

  2. You can walk around with handgun ammunition in your pockets, or
     possess it, with merely an FID card.

  3. You CANNOT purchase handguns or ammunition for handguns with
     merely an FID card.  You CANNOT carry a handgun outside your
     residence or business with merely an FID card.

Also, someone mentioned that you can't be charged for illegal possession
of firearms in your home without an FID if you are not there.  I'm
not sure on this.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: John of Keen Deductive Powers
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:12:08 GMT

In <BrpC3B.JKr@acsu.buffalo.edu> blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.041339.21313@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>>>Looks like the children at MIT are playing again.
>>
>>My newsreader doesn't show all those fields.  Interesting.  A little
>>Susan bashing wouldn't have been that harmful, would it have?  Sigh.
>>Pardon me, but I'm getting pessimistic here.  I've been around a year
>>or so, and it seems that everyone who purposely posts to this group
>>is already dead set on their position.  Bowman or Lambert or Jewell all
>>seem impervious to logic, and us pro-gunners--oops--I mean you
>>distinguished pro-gunners and me the embarrassment that I am are all dead
>>set against gun control.  The only time I see pliable material is when
>>we drag in other newsgroups.  The value of this group is that it functions
>>as a support net for pro-gunners--a way for supporters of the Second
>>Amendment to exchange justifications, obtain facts, and test out ideas.
>>I have little faith that we are converting people.  By all means, if you
>>know I'm wrong, let me know.


>You're wrong.  More than one person has listened to both arguments
>and changed their minds.

 
Yes, I for one, although I still don't own a gun, I will sure join
in defense of the second. Mind you, it was not a lot of flames that
convinced me. The convincing came from calm, quiet, factual data
sent by quite a few t.p.g posters (Krag was one, now the only thing
we seem to disagree on is politics :-) ). The 'wankers' on either
side couldn't sell tent heaters to the Inuit.

>************************************************************************
>Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
># Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
>Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.

REB.

Clinton and Gore in '92.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns