HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 11:16:57 GMT

In article <1ejudfINN6l0@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:

}>Well, I don't know about you, but I like the idea that the President would
}>have to worry about getting assasinated by a mob of angry people if he
}>got tyrannical.
}
}It would not be a mob of angry people which would do the assassination; it
}would be a lone sniper who would do the job coolly and professionally.  He
}would have to make his plans well in advance in order to get a decent shot.
}And even under a gun ban such a man could get a rifle.

Why does it have to be by a lone sniper?

}>Your claim about the Soviet Union seems false, though, when you consider the
}>possibility of the assasination of Stalin prior to the death of Lenin.  I've
}>heard of historians arguing that if only Lenin had lived, the USSR would
}>have liberalized in the 1930s.
}
}I doubt these historians mention Lenin's guards.  That is, the ones he
}imported from Estonia because there were no Russians which were sufficiently
}reliable.  Is a man who must be insulated from his countrymen going to be
}inclined to liberalize?  I doubt it.

Didn't Pinochet have to be insulated so and liberalize the Chilean economy?
Aren't the insulated gerontocracy of Socialist China doing the same?

}Lenin's ideas were well known even before he began to put them into effect.
}During the first world war the Germans transported him back from his exile
}across Germany in a sealed boxcar and into Russia.  Not as an agent, or
}anybody who would owe Germany favors, but as a subversive who would destroy
}the Russian nation.

The argument, which is beyond my poor ability to defend, is that he was
enough of a pragmatist interested in economic growth that he would have
adapted ideology to that goal, much as is currently happening in China.

}Of course this objection to your statements about Lenin does not affect the
}substance of your argument; it merely pushes it back by one person.  That
}is, what if Lenin had been assassinated?  I don't know.  In saying that the
}Soviet Union was relatively invulnerable to assassinations, I am relying
}mainly on Viktor Suvorov's account of the way power was exercised in the
}modern USSR.  He describes it as being shared between the Communist Party,
}the KGB, and the Red Army.  Whenever one of the three got too strong, the
}other two would combine against it.  Thus the system was quite stable.  An
}assassination which hit any one of the three could not affect it.

Not Lenin, Stalin.  And what if it had happened prior to the formation of
the KGB?  Would the kulaks have been liquadated?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: smittie@csulb.edu (Smittie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Control:  A modern, REALISTIC view.
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:08:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

>England has something like 7-10 gun deaths a year, and we have 20,000 or more.

Someone out there correct me if I am wrong but I believe that handguns have
only been legal for ownership by the general public for two or three brief
periods in the History of England. For the most part, guns have not been legal
in England at all.

Many people like to use Japan in the same example. However, the same thing is
true. Guns have never been available to the general populace.

This is the case with most, if not all, of the countries where total gun
control is in place and there are very few gun related deaths.

There is also an error in the logic here which assumes that England's low count
in gun related deaths is due to England's gun control. Other factors may well
be the reason.

>That alone says something.  I am for STRICT gun restrictions.

No, actually that alone says nothing at all.

smittie
-- 
                             Tada mono de ha nai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEnie, MCI, AOL:Smittie   All of these accounts except MCI will die on or
smittie@beach.csulb.edu   about Dec 31. UNIX will be forwarded for 2 weeks.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: geff@iastate.edu (Geff Underwood)
Subject: Re: A Coffee-House Conversation with an Imaginary Nadja
Organization: none for me, thanks, I'm trying to cut down
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:02:04 GMT

In article <37624@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
>
>I love the argument "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have
>guns."
>
>Just imagine how that would clean up our judicial system.  If simple
>possession of a gun were punishable by 10 years in jail, then we could
>get all the criminals off the street without having to prove any
>complicated cases.  No expert witnesses, no crime labs, no dueling
>attorneys.
>
>A criminal wouldn't dare carry a gun, because that would identify him
>immediately as a criminal.

We don't have to imagine; the experiment is already in progress.  In
Washington, D.C., handguns are illegal, and longarms are strictly
controlled.

Fifteen years into the experiment, your hypothesis has yet to be
confirmed.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  No city in this country has a
higher murder rate than D.C., even though several have higher
populations.

--
Geff Underwood
geff@iastate.edu
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A Coffee-House Conversation with an Imaginary Nadja (Was Re: Eva Clayton bio)
Date: 15 Nov 92 12:06:47 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <1992Nov12.034659.26945@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

# Fine: Explain how you plan to disarm _criminals_ (completely and
# totally), despite the fact only 8% of them legally purchase their
# guns. Once you have explained this, your argument will be relevant.

I love the argument "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have
guns."

Just imagine how that would clean up our judicial system.  If simple
possession of a gun were punishable by 10 years in jail, then we could
get all the criminals off the street without having to prove any
complicated cases.  No expert witnesses, no crime labs, no dueling
attorneys.

A criminal wouldn't dare carry a gun, because that would identify him
immediately as a criminal.

David
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: 23 Nov 1992 22:43:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1ejudfINN6l0@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:

>[Viktor] Suvorov (a pseudonym) defected to the West after a long career in the army
>and in military intelligence.  His books are uniformly interesting.

Interesting reading, yes.  Uniformly reliable, no.  (When writing about tanks
and the Red Army, he's good, but the book about Spetsnaz is pretty weak.)



--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
-------------------------------------------------------
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A modern, REALISTIC view.
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:18:52 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
> 
>                         The Power of Terrorists
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Terrorists could knock out electrical power to 
> an American city by using store-bought rifles on carefully chosen 
> targets, congressional researchers said Thursday.
> 
> Armed with high-powered rifles available from any gun store and 
> some basic engineering knowledge, terrorists could wreak havoc 
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
hmm, maybe we should try outlawing engineers next. might do about
as much good...

> without having to get past a single guard at generating plants, 
> Robin Roy of the congressional Office of Technology Assessment told 
> the Senate Government Affairs Committee.

many :^)

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` Democrat:    Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,`
`,` Republican:  Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems.  `,`
`,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems.        `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: The "Invisible" Glock Mythology
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:27:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.003454.20041@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
}In article <4400270@iftccu.boeing.com> bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
}>Speaking of invisible stuff --- I've never had anybody check the contents
}>of a thermous.  Could be coffee --- could be gasoline, or something even 
}>MORE dangerous.   Or maybe it's just MY thermous they don't check.
}>Airport security is a joke.
}
}It was once pointed out to me that tonfas (including the police-issue
}PR-24 sort) are as effective a weapon as a knife and made entirely
}of wood. They go right through an ariport x-ray machine.

So did my hiking stick, complete with steel alpine spike.  The security
folk looked it over, scratched their heads and let me through.  It wasn't
a gun, it wasn't a knife, it wasn't on the weapons list at all, so ...

I guess spears aren't a concern.

Quarterstaff?  What's that? (-:

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: CA course (was: the US Elections...)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:06:11 GMT

In article <1ejp14INNbsm@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>Speaking of the California course, I have heard from a California gun
>owner who is familiar with what is happening with this legislation, and
>he claims that privately-run courses ARE acceptable.  They have to be
>recognized, or accredited, or the like.  

Have any been recognized/accredited to date?

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:42:58 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


> "Social Security is a fraudulent pyramid scheme"

The truth of the matter, if people would actually take a good look, is
that SS *IS* a fraudulent pyramid scheme.

The problem is that if the truth is widely spread and believed, a
large number of people would have to find something else to do
(besides suck on Uncle's tit).

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Want the last word with a crook?  Try a 12ga pump with #4 magnum!
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:58:25 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <BxtFuz.9Fq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.134900.22861@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>>I think an important part of this particular story is the fact that the
>>shooter came out of the safe refuge of his home to shoot an unarmed person.
>>I can understand being worried, even being armed, (I would be) but in many
>>states, the prosecutors would be asking why he didn't call the police and
>>remain inside.

>In many ways I'm glad I don't live in a state that restricts you to
>such indiginity.  Hattori aside (I'm going to let the grand jury view

HA! Try Massachusetts where if someone is threatening your life in your
own home, you must prove that you had no chance to flee if you hit back!



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:14:19 GMT

In article <22512@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>But there have been NRA ads on network TV.  They've usually featured
>Charleton Heston and a few other celebs.

Be very careful here. Ads you may see on network *affiliate* 
stations aren't always *network* spots. During network shows, local
affiliates get local avails to sell. These positions are few in
prime time, but more numerous in other time periods. It's NBC
network policy not to air pro-gun spots, but some local affiliates
*will* air pro-gun spots during their local avails. 

Not many local stations will air pro-gun spots either, unfortunately,
because they are owned by large chains who have avowed anti-gun
policies, such as Gannett, who owns 12 major TV stations, 24 radio
stations, and 58 daily newspapers. Time Warner is another multimedia
giant that forbids pro-gun ads. CBS/Sony falls in this same camp.

There is a third way to get NRA ads on the air. That's through
barter spots in syndicated programs. These spots are included
in the program and bring in money directly to the syndicator
rather than the airing station. The station *must* air these
barter spots in order to get the program. The Rush Linbaugh
show is one such program. The NRA buys barter spots in this
program. Even Gannett, who bans pro-gun ads on it's stations,
must air these spots if they want the Rush Linbaugh show.

Most Hollywood producers and syndicators are also anti-gun,
but the producer of Limbaugh is a major Republican direct
marketing person, Roger Ailes, who luckily supports the NRA 
and has the marketing clout to make it stick in his popular 
program.

There are seven major companies who control the majority 
of the mass media in this country. All seven are anti-gun.
Of the seven, only Turner will openly accept pro-gun advertising.
Teddy has never let ideology stand in the way of turning
a buck. He does charge a premium rate for pro-gun spots
though while giving HCI free time.

Gary
From: alexb@cfctech.cfc.com (Alex Beylin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Help finding data - gun-related crime statistics
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:09:41 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Corp., Center Line, MI

Greetings:

I am in the process of working on a fairly large scale research
paper for a class.  We were asked to consider an issue that has a
global effect on the society.  As a gun enthusiast, I decided to
study effects of gun control on crime.

The exact topic is still being refined, but will be something
along the lines of "... to analyze the effect of state gun
control laws which restrict acquisition and possession of
handguns by private individuals on crimes where a handgun was
used, from 19?? through 1990, in order to determine effectiveness
of such legislation in preventing criminal use of the specific type
of firearms".

The data I expect to need is:
- crime statistics for states over last 5-10 years, with some
  indication if handguns were involved in the crime

- record of gun control laws for all states, as it applies to handguns, for the
  same years.

Now, I am not sure that I am being realistic.  University of
Michigan Library, where I made the first try in finding  data,
does not have anything of a kind.  The Law library has most of
state legislature, of cause, but not in any kind of a digested
format.  Does this data exits?

I am planning to contact both NRA (life membership better have
some privileges) and FBI.  Not sure that FBI will talk to me, though.

If you know of  a book, document or a research project that may
provide the data I am looking for, please let me know.  In
exchange I will provide findings to anyone who asks via e-mail,
once the project is complete.

All ideas of sources for this data will be much appreciated.  Do
state BATF offices provide summaries of state laws to those who
ask?  Does FBI publish crime statistics for general public?

PLEASE USE E-MAIL WHEN YOU RESPOND - MY NEWS FEED HAS BEEN FLAKEY
LATELY.  Or feel free to call voice or send paper mail.

Thanks in advance.

Alex Beylin                        10300 Clark Road
alexb@cfctech.cfc.com              Davisburg, MI 48350
                                   (313) 625-0374 (evenings)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Guns & self defense
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:27:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.182443.13431@radian.uucp> markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.002301.19866@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Why?  Well, reaction, which is what he's doing takes time.  It doesn't
>>take a lot of time, but it does take time.  You can complete some acts
>>during that time, but not many.  It's easy enough to demonstrate that
>>draw and fire is one of those things.  (Police understand this, which
>>is why they're so twitchy in certain situations; the action/reaction
>>gap doesn't depend on the legal status of the parties involved.)
>
>Let's see if I have this right: a guy is standing there, with a gun pointed 
>at you, and you have time to draw your gun, aim, and blow him away; this is
>a guy who's already twitchy (armed robbery on the streets isn't exactly a
>low-risk profession). He's going to wait while you say "make my day", too?
>Let's try this: *I* hold a water pistol aimed at you, and you draw. Betcha
>you get wet first, and I may not at all. When do you want to try this
>experiment, and where?

Considering that I suggested the experiment, I'll take that bet.
I've tried it lots of times with lots of people and I know how it
works out.  A "bet" would be easy money for me.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: the US elections...
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:05:37 GMT

altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:

[...]

>                                                                   If you've
>noticed, I have in my posts said that I don't look forward to the day when
>I feel the need for a gun, but THAT I WILL PURCHASE ONE if that day arrives,
>and learn how to use it safely. 

I see you are in California.  You best plan on getting one soon and at
least 15 days before you need it.

---
Larry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mjm3170@zeus.tamu.edu (MATTSON, MATTHEW JUL)
Subject: Firearms laws in the Maryland, Virginia, D.C. area...?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:17:00 GMT

Because i might possibly be taking a job with the Federal Govt. this next year
(I cannot expand on this...) I am interested in the firearms laws of the states
I mentioned in the subject line.  Can anyone help me out?

Of particualr interest are the requirements to qulify for a full-carry
handgun permit and the laws concerning transport of both handguns and
rifles (yes, semi-auto...something to make the liberals cringe...).

Thank you for any info...

Matt
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Subject: Re: Semi-Auto Bans
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:07:17 GMT

In <1992Nov11.154551.12167@stortek.com> vojak@makalu.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:

> kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin) writes (about semi-auto bans)
>>This is a scary topic. Let me make sure that I understand the issue.
>>For example, if they ( whoever can be ) decide to ban Colt Sport HBAR
>>and/or Beretta 92FS, does it mean:

>>(2) We have to turn them in, if we own them.

> OR how about option 3.  They  become contraban making them illegal to
> possess AND Clinton decides that if you are caught with one in your
> home, you loose your house.  In your car, you loose your car.  The

> Another question would be, where do .22s fit in?  Will they be exempt?

As we discovered in Canada, 22 rimfire rifles that are ugly (Feather AT-22)
are completely prohibited, yet conventional 22s (Ruger 10/22) are
still legal.

> Will gun makers get around the ban by re-chambering their guns for
> .222 instead of .223, and .307 instead of .308?  Didn't some gun makers
> in Europe go to 9x21 to get around the "millitary round" ban?  (Can't
> let them have 9mm, but they can have 9mm major).

No, I bet they add the words "and variants" or "in various calibres"
to any ban. They will then use the courts to extend the variant
relationship to all firearms.

EG, isn't a single shot 308 bench-rest rifle just a variant of a 
.50 calibre long range rifle? Isn't a 5 shot bolt action 308 just
a variant of a single shot 308? Isn't a 5 shot 30-06 just variant
of a 5-shot 308?


-- 
Greg Booth BSc                    |     /_____________________________
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS|@====|_____________________________>
Motorola Mobile Data Division     |     \
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com cgb003@email.comm.mot.com