HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Virginia State Police to End Smith & Wesson Gun Replacement Program
Organization: NDA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:55:30 GMT

Here is a press release from the Virginia State Police.

 Virginia State Police to End Smith & Wesson Gun Replacement Program
 Contact: Virginia State Police,
          Richmond Information Office, 804-674-2016, or
          Fairfax Information Office, 703-323-4515

   RlCHMOND, Oct. 6   -- Col. Carl R. Baker, Virginia State 
Police Superintendent, today announced that the department
intends to terminate its program with Smith & Wesson to replace its
original 10mm semi-automatic pistols with current production models.
   "It is critical that law enforcement officers have safe and
reliable weapons," said Baker, "and due to continuing problems with
the Smith & Wesson 10mm, we have decided to take appropriate action
to terminate our agreement with Smith & Wesson and provide our
officers with a different service weapon."  He added that the
currently issued 10mm pistols have been recently modified by Smith &
Wesson and will be retained until replacement weapons can be
purchased.
   Baker also announced that State Police will soon request bids for
replacement weapons and that the department will test all weapons
submitted by companies seeking the contract prior to making its
selection.
   State Police bought the Smith & Wesson 10mm semiautomatic pistols
in the spring of 1990 to replace its .38 revolvers.  However, because
of firing inconsistencies that developed during this spring's
firearms training and the number of weapons returned to Smith &
Wesson over the past two years, the manufacturer agreed to replace
all the original weapons with a later production model and to provide
additional familiarization training for employees.
   Recent testing of the replacement weapons revealed continuing
malfunctions.  The department has surveyed all of the replacement
weapons from Smith & Wesson and found malfunctioning decocking levers
on approximately 30 percent of the weapons.  In addition to this
problem, some of the replacement weapons experienced other
malfunctions.
 -30-

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:46:37 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


In article <84097@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:

[...]
> The local police department consists of professionals
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you refering to the departments in the King/Shohomish county
area?  Lets see now, was it at Kent where the cops got the address
wrong and staged no-knock raids not once but twice on the same couple.
How about the woman so recently deceased in Everett?  How about the 
recent no-knock raid put on for the TV show "Top Cops" where the local 
--professionals-- hit the wrong house.  Good exciting stuff for the TV
show; the TV people got some good footage of the lady's ass, but it was
the wrong ass.  It has only been a couple of years since the coppers
nailed a guy sitting in his own living room armed with (gasp) an assault
tv remote control.  Of course it *was* a no-knock raid and I suppose the
cops were afraid he would change the channel before they saw the end of
the show.

GET REAL - a lot of cops are good; some aren't; some are thugs and bullies
in a protected racket.

>    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.rant.rockford.illness
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Racism in Rockford IL (was: What Happens to Your Gun if You Defend Yourself at Home?)
Keywords: Rockford, IL: Regime of slime and terror
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:30:17 GMT

The whole state of Illinois stinks only slightly less than New Jersey
with respect to RKBA.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
[.sig on vacation]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: Alleged murder in Brattleboro VT
Reply-To: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 14:19:20 GMT

Isn't the funeral plot tax deductable ?
In most cases stupidity is not treatable and less and less
people are born with common sense.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.belcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I DONT CARE IF I SOUND CONFUSED, I KNOW WHAT I MEAN !!!
From: shenry@iat.holonet.net (Steve Henry)
Subject: Re: A half-step backwards
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:52:42 GMT

alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
: To me, it appears that there are two basic lines of debate (summarized
: below) and a set of counterarguments to each one.
: 
: 
: GUNS & VIOLENCE (the anti-gun line of argument):
...
: GUNS & CIVIL RIGHTS (the pro-gun line of argument):
: 
: So here is my question to the net:  Are there any arguments either for
: or against guns which do not fall within the two lines of argument which
: I have outlined above?  Any arguments which take a totally new tack on
: the issue?

Here's mine, which may or may not be new:

There is nothing I can do with a gun that would cause harm (or even be a
nuisance) to another individual WITHOUT BREAKING EXISTING LAWS.  That
tells me that all needed laws are in place, and if guns are a problem,
there can be no legislative solution.

-- 
*******************************************************
*  From: Steve Henry  * "A dead end's a dead end,     *
*  shenry@holonet.net *  a trailer's a trailer...     *
***********************  even if it's a double-wide"  *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: California gun laws
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:05:47 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep28.184658.16753@btree.uucp>, btree!hale@UCSD.EDU (Bob Hale) writes:
> Assemblyman Rusty Areias sponsored a bill
> which requires that a handgun buyer take a safety course or provide
> some other form of proof of gun competence (such as a hunting license)
> before a handgun could be sold to the buyer. 

> "Meanwhile, Lundgren [the state Attorney General] has sent a letter
> to Assemblyman Rusty Areias telling him that there was no budgetary
> appropriation to allow funding of mandatory safety training for
> prospective handgun buyers.

> If the law is not repealed by
> then, people who are not otherwise exempted would be unable to
> purchase handguns since they would be required to take a safety
> course which did not exist."

What, you mean in California it was generally expected that if the
state required a safety course, the state had to provide it?

Gee, Massachusetts could teach THEM something.  Here, they require
a safety course, and YOU have to pay for it yourself!
-- 

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: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: TPG September 92 Statistics
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:31:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T


This is the full set of data from the USENET readership report for Sep 92.
Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.

        +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
        |     +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
        |     |     +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
        |     |     |      +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
        |     |     |      |      +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
        |     |     |      |      |      +-- Crossposting percentage
        |     |     |      |      |      |    +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
        |     |     |      |      |      |    |      +-- Share: % of newsrders
        |     |     |      |      |      |    |      |   who read this group.
        V     V     V      V      V      V    V      V
 420  20000   646   68%   828  2227.5    13%  0.15   1.4%  talk.politics.guns 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 08:23:13 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:

[Re: right vs priviledge to drive]

>I'm not sure it's not still arguable, but that argument *is* pretty easy
>to refute: a "Right to Travel" is not being restricted in the least, you're
>welcome to travel wherever you wish.  On your feet.  It's the privilege
>of operating a vehicle on public property (all eight words important to
>the point) that is being governed.

If you believe the 9th and 10th amendments should still be held valid 
until formally repealed (as opposed to being defacto repealed. I believe
former Chief Fascist Burger called them "dog meat."), then you HAVE to 
believe that the RIGHT to operate a vehicle, not having been delegated
to the states or the US government, belongs to the people.  The basis
of the Constitution is it grants the federal government certain, very 
well defined powers and reserves ALL OTHERS INCLUDING those not yet
thought of for the individual citizens.

I know this is a radical idea in this era of Soviet-style Big Government 
that steals about half of every working man's wealth in order to allow
perhaps half the population to suck off of Uncle Sugar's hind tit but 
that's what the words say.

As to the concept of "public property" affecting this right, I'm still
searching in vain within the Constitution for the place where the 
Government is granted to right to own anything.

The country and form of government established by the Constitution is 
much too good and powerful to be defeated by any outside enemy.  It is
not strong enough, however, to withstand assault from within.  The question
now is when is our collective greed, stupidity and neglect going to 
destroy this wonderful creation?

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rdh@sli.com (Robert D. Houk)
Subject:  WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Reply-To: rdh@sli.com (or uunet!sli!rdh)
Organization: Software Leverage, Inc. Arlington, Ma
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:05:32 GMT

I came across this [excerpt] recently whilst perusing some old conferencing
material. Can anyone out there provide any substantiation/refutation? An
actual pointer to "source" material would be greatly welcome!

					-RDH

   ... I have heard of one story which would qualify, I just can't 
   back it up with specific references though I have been (on a part-time 
   basis) trying to find the original reference for about a month now.  My 
   understanding is that some professional journal for the US Navy ran a 
   short article some years back which cited interviews that the Navy 
   conducted with the Japanese leadership right after WWII.  The purpose of 
   the interviews was to determine the "other side of the story".

   One of the questions asked was why the Japanese did not plan to take Hawaii 
   after the Pearl Harbor raid.  The entire fleet and local airforce was 
   destroyed, the islands lay helpless, why didn't they follow thru and remove 
   this obvious stretegic base from American hands (I think that most people 
   would admit that if Japan HAD taken Hawaii, the outcome of the Pacific war 
   might have been somewhat different).  The Japanese answered that the reason 
   they didn't invade was that they didn't think they could hold the islands 
   once they "took 'em".  They stated explicitly that they knew they could 
   beat the army, but because so many civilians had privately held arms, they 
   didn't believe they could handle the GW that would erupt.  This opinion they
   said was borne out in the Phillipines where there WAS significant gun 
   control and (for the most part) a disarmed populace, yet where the Japanese 
   still had a very difficult time with the GW that developed after 
   occupation.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 13:17:07 GMT

In article <84097@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
[snip]
> The local police department consists of professionals
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ............ *gasp*


>    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

John Kapson
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Alleged murder in Brattleboro VT
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:13:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <BD.92Sep27100232@fluent.UUCP>, bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:
> 
> Last week there was an (alleged) murder in Brattleboro VT.
> 
> A woman left her boyfriend, and started a relationship with another woman.  
> The spurned male made a bunch of threatening actions, and the woman went 
> to the Windham County Sheriff's Office, where the woman was told that the 
> police couldn't do anything until the guy actually _did_ something to her.
> 
> A few days ago, when the woman's girlfrined picked her up after work, they 
> noticed that this guy was following them.  They drove around a bit, and 
> then pulled into a gas station and asked the attendant to call the police 
> for them.  At this point the man allegedly opened the car door and stabbed 
> the woman repeatedly with a large knife.
> 
> I post this story as an example of situations when it would be nice
> if the person being threatened had the option of buying a handgun 
> without a waiting period. 
>
> I have no idea if the police recommended this woman arm herself, or 
> if there is a waiting period of any kind in Vermont.

Geez, I am astounded.  Vermont is one of the FREEST states for purchasing
and carrying guns.  There probably WAS no reason that this woman could NOT
have armed herself immediately.

What I find telling is that the police seemingly did not BOTHER to tell her 
that she had this option!  Maybe they did, and she decided that she would
be uncomfortable with a gun.  The account doesn't say.  But I'd almost be
willing to bet that they did not.

> I just can't understand someone being so scared they're going to get 
> hurt that they buy a funeral plot but don't buy a gun.  

Exactly my feeling.  It CAN happen, but what are the odds it did here?

Note that the Brady Bill contains language that allows a person to buy
a gun immediately with no waiting period by presenting the dealer with a
letter from the chief saying, "This person is in danger -- let her buy
a gun immediately."  How many people here think this section will EVER
see any use at all?
-- 

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: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Brady Bill squashed and other news
Keywords: Brady, Good riddance
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:36:28 GMT
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <viking.718352682@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>	I'm looking forward to this post!  I mentioned the republicans
>because the news has reported it as being a republican filibuster, though
>it's certain many democrats and even a few libertarians and independents
>might have joined in.                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This would be unlikely since there aren't any libertarian or independent
Senators.  I'm sure that a libertarian senator would have joined in
but there aren't any.  I think that there is only one member of the
House who is not a Republican or Democrat - and I think he's a Socialist
or some such thing.

>
><Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
><z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
><viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
><ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
>


-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Bush Blows NRA Support
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:36:48 GMT


|Why doesn't the NRA give the official nod to the Populist candidate
|Bo Gritz? I think we all know he can't win, but it would help the country
|see that there are more than just 2 choices in the election if the Populist
|party could muster enough votes.

|Maybe the NRA figures if they endorse a third party candidate they will
|piss off many of their members who think those candidates are whackos.

Amusingly enough, I noticed a political sticker for the Populist
Party on a newspaper box in Chicago; it had, among other things,
a line on it advertising "Skinhead Merchandise" from a location,
of all places, Highland Park, IL. Highland Park has plenty of Jews,
and has followed in Moron Grove's tracks in passing a handgun ban.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Bush's position statement on RKBA (pretty sad!!!)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 19:37:13 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <1992Sep25.182521.12341@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.005657.4378@osf.org> craig@osf.org (Craig Peterson) writes:
[ quoting George Bush ... ]
>>are used by criminals to "spray" an area with gunfire.  These
>                           ^^^^^
[ ... ]
>  Here these are not being called "assault weapons".  I think
>that we have some serious word-definition-bending going on.

Me too.  I thought "spray" was something done by male cats.   :-)
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense (what should I carry ?)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:15:42 GMT


|Bill Vojak has informed me that Chicago has indeed
|last year banned any metal flashlight over 3 cell size.

Amazing. I didn't hear a peep about this in the Chicago newspapers,
nor any mention on the local news broadcasts. I'm sure that GUNWEEK
would like to know about this, if you have a newspaper clipping
or a copy of the appropriate municipal code.

Hell, I think we _ALL_ would like to see the appropriate municipal
code...

I guess this means that MAGLITE will have to get together with battery
manufacturers and light bulb makers to assemble a heavy amperage
single cell flashlight powering a multi-ampere 1.5V light bulb; the
Democrats will then resort to their favorite strategy of banning things;
banning products by name. I can see it now, the banned list of handheld
lighting instruments:

Sec 1, [a]:

	The following lighting implements are hereby banned in the
	City of Chicago:
	
	[1] K-MAX FLAMETHROWER 6D cell flashlight.
	
	[2] GE LASER SABER 4C cell flashlight.
	
	[3] ...
	
Think about this; the scum that's generating these anti-flashlight
laws must be reading Mas Ayoobs' books on self-defense and similar;
this means that they are deliberately seeking to restrict ANY item
that has the possible application of self-defense. Now why would
someone deliberately look to restrict innocuous items that MIGHT be
used for self-defense?

You got it: Fascist Lowlifes.

|What's next?  (Please don't answer that ... the question
|was rhetorical only.  I don't really want to find out!)

Yeah, but... Chicago, where defacto bans on so-called "assault
weapons," handguns, spray paint, public assembly exists... where
police perodically search PRIVATE residences in Chicago
Housing authority units, enforced by METAL detectors on the outside
of the buildings... located in Illinois, where so-called "Saturday
Night Specials" are banned based on the melting point of the frame...

Yeah, our very own self-made "People's Republic of Chicago," surrounded
by little suburban fascist villages like Moron Grove, Evanscum...

This f*cking state needs a major rewrite of the State Constitution, so
that we can get some major preemption state laws on the books pronto...
too bad Illinois voters don't give a sh*t about their "essential 
liberties," voting to reject a state constitutional convention four
years ago, based on the news media assertion that 'Oh, it costs too
much...' BULLSHIT; they didn't want the the the so-called "RKBA"
provision changed to eliminate the STUPID "Subject to Police Power"
provision...
From: mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Matt Wette)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:33:15 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab
Originator: mwette@mr-ed


|> >>From: rterry@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Ray Terry)
|> 
|> >>>Has there ever been any proof that gun control works in the UK?
|> >>>I'm interested in a comparison of violent crime before and after
|> >>>gun control was instituted in the UK in the 1920's(?).  It's quite
|> >>>possible that gun crimes went down, but if other violent crimes
|> >>>increased, then I'd claim that gun control has not really worked in
|> >>>the UK, assuming non-gun violence increased as much as gun violence
|> >>>decreased.

I've heard that
  before UK gun control
    US homicide rate / UK homicide rate  =  16:1
and
  after UK gun control
    US homicide rate / UK homicide rate  =  10:1

indicating that the rate in the UK has been climbing faster than in
the US.  Can anyone verify this?

Matt
-- 
mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Waiting period == harassment
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 16:16:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.155109.10631@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
[snip]
>I don't think departments necessarily have a "make them wait as long
>as possible" policy,

Come to Chicago and find out.  What possible reason is there for it
taking six weeks to get a FOID card form the State Police if not simply
to harass me?

>                     it's just that the long waiting period allows them
>to schedule all the transfer applications for a single "batch processing"
>run and still meet the deadline.  If your purchase just happens to arrive
>right at the processing time, it will get done immediately.  Otherwise,
>it could just wait for the next processing run.

From the people I've spoken to, it seems that every one of their FOID
applications did not "just happen(s) to arrive right at the processing time"
and every one of them had to "just wait for the next processing run".
Talk about coincidence.

Anybody in the Chicago area receive an FOID in under six weeks?

>  Alan S. Watt

John Kapson    NRA ILA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns