HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:08:31 GMT

In article <1it58vINNgbq@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
>No one has yet mentioned the greatest risk of all in such circumstances:
>
>Your opponent is not actually a criminal.  If you use a gun
>against him, you will be the criminal.

"Greatest risk" implies that our anonymous friend has data supporting
that claim, yet in subsequent messages s\he denies having any.

>you use your gun for self-defense, it will probably be against someone
>you know.  Whether or not your actions are warranted will be an issue.

That's true no matter what your relationship with the other person
and whether or not they have a record.

>If you reach the point of fatally shooting your acquaintance, you will
>go to prison.

Nope.  It depends on what said acquaintance was doing.

>You will live with the guilt of extinguishing an innocent life.

Wowsers.  A spouse-beater during an attack is an "innocent" life.  If
my SO is attacked by the rapist in our apartment building (whom she
"knows") and kills him, our anonymous friend thinks that his blood
washes him clean.

>versus "unsuccessful" self-defense.  None of these statistics include
>the numerous cases where a man with a gun thought he was acting in
>self-defense, but wasn't.

"Numerous"?  Actually, they're fairly rare.  But then, some of us,
unlike our anonymous friend, have looked up these stats.

>because most homicides have no planning whatsoever and arise from
>verbal arguments.

As opposed to those that arise from written arguments?  Oh, and the
ASL arguments are really heated too.

Homicides involve people who have a long history of getting into
"arguments" that end up in violence.  Most of us get into arguments,
but that doesn't imply that we're like people who kill.  (Note that
killers, just like the rest of us, breath.  A "people who breath are
likely to kill" argument is just as dishonest as the argument offered
by our anonymous friend.)

>There are even many cases with celebrity status.

So?

>I will always give another human being nearly limitless benefit of the
>doubt before pointing a gun at him or her.  If it means I or
>someone in my family might die needlessly, so be it.  At least I
>won't kill needlessly.

We've since found out what that means; our anonymous friend wants a
conviction first.  Since convictions can't happen until AFTER the
incident in question, that means our friend will never use lethal
force self-defense.  (Nope - s\he can't use lethal force for
subsequent attacks because the conviction was for previous attacks.)

That's a nice sentiment.  Does our anonymous friend propose imposing
it on the rest of us?  I note that imposing it requires lethal force.
(That's how the law works.  If you don't toe they line, they bring in
the thugs.  If you're not willing to kill someone to get them to do
something, you can't propose a law to do it.)

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini)
Subject: Re: Can dishonorably discharged gays stay in the NRA?
Reply-To: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: High Energy Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:38:02 GMT

Kirk Hays writes:
>>The only persons excluded from membership are felons, ex-felons, and
>>persons with a dishonorable discharge from the armed forces.
>

It was then posted that people can get a dishonorable discharge
simply for being gay. This is incorrect. The discharge in those
cases is an Honorable Discharge, with some subtext. I believe that
in the Navy the exact same wording is used for discharges of
women who get pregnent as for those who are discharged for being
gay. Dishonorable Discharges are only used for what would be criminal
acts, regardless of the sexual orientation of the person involved.


*1110 W. Green/Urbana IL 61801/217-333-0505/cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary)
Subject: Re: Kennesaw, 1986: Burglary Still Down 85%
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:36:35 GMT
Summary: What is sacred about 10 years?

In article <LAMBERT.93Jan12212851@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>, lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> >>>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:19:24 GMT, oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) said:
> 
> > The residential burglary rate in Kennesaw, Georgia dropped sharply
> > after a city ordinance requiring heads of household to keep at least one
> > firearm in their homes was passed.  The law passed early in 1982.
> > In 1986 the rate was still down 85% compared to 1981. (1)
> 
> This statistic is essentially meaningless.  If the crime rate
> fluctuates, then by picking the right two years to compare, you can
> get any result you want.  To make a credible case, you need to provide
> data for at least the ten years 77-86.  

As I pointed out, if Kleck is calculating as you think he is he picked
the highest post-law burglary year to make his case with.  He calculated
a 85% drop in residential burglaries and a 56% drop in total burglaries.

Now just what is sacred about this 10 year period?  Why not use the
8 six month periods immediately preceding and the 8 following the passage
of the law in mid-March 1982?  And what about the 89% decrease reported
when the seven month period immediately following the law was compared
to the same period the year before? (1)

Because the big jump in burglaries ocuured in 1986 and without it
the 10 year study you cite would have had a different outcome? (2)

Brian Leary

(1) Kleck, Point Blank, 1991, page 136.   
(2) Kleck, page 138.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:34:22 GMT


I wrote:

> James D. Wright writes in "Kids, Guns, and Killing Fields"

and should have said this is in the November/December '92 issue
of "Society" magazine.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Guns and Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:48:50 GMT

In <9301101332.00@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>Under Mass law:

>Mace - requires a FID card
>Pepper gas - requires a FID card

	Have the required an FID card for oven cleaner yet?  Works far
better than this stuff, especially if you hit the eyes.

>Stun guns - even the police can't have them

	Damn!  Iowa farmers can pick them up at the hardware store, yet
the Mass police can't have them?  Funny, not too many farmers zapping
each other with them.

>Saps - requires a pistol permit
>nightstick - requires a pistol permit

	Do all the Red Sox players have these permits?  I'd hate to
think of what a good hickory baseball bat could do.

>Double edged weapons longer than 1.5 inches - banned

	Sounds like the file in a toe-nail clipper to me.

	Has the point been made that the laws are ineffective and
only inconvenience those who allow them to yet?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pfeiffer@nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer)
Subject: Re: Coal. to Stop Gun viol.sent me a SURVEY/PETITION
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:51:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.052256.19364@iitmax.iit.edu> technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes:


   4 SALE OF DANGEROUS ASSAULT WEAPONS IS ALSO ON THE RISE.
		   (accompanied by a image of a UZI carbine)
		   The production of military style weapons have increased
   dramatically in recent years. In fact, the number of weapons designed to
   accept silencers and bayonets increased 51% in 1989 alone, and these
   assault rifles are ten times more likely to be used in crime than other
   firearms, according to a study published by Cox newspapers.

		   ERRORS: first, how many people have died recently from rifle
		   mounted bayonets? from silenced weapons? from guns with BOTH?
				   Second, the "Cox Newspaper Study" reporting 10x more likely
		   is based on the # of FBI tracebacks of weapons, not the # actually
		   used in crimes. The number of tracebacks has been artificially
		   inflated due to the recent policy of the FBI to traceback weapons
		   chosen at random from (manufacturer's?) serial numbers.

Aren't UZIs still banned from import?

-Joe.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:25909 alt.society.civil-liberty:7234
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: This organ donating thread
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:34:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1993Jan4.110244.28723@doug.cae.wisc.edu> sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:

>Everyone makes money on the organ donation except the donor or donor's family.
>It is illegal to sell the organs.  But the doctors and hospitals make money through
>the surgeries needed.
>
>The solution is simple.  Allow people to sell their organs.  Pay people for the
>right to take their organs when they die.  

       Consider this:  If your organs are an asset with a dollar value,
what happens when you go into bankruptcy?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:02:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Guns and Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> / 10:54 pm  Jan  6, 1993 /

>Arizona Constitution:  Article II, Section 26
>
>"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
>himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
>section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
>corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of
>men."


This is word for word Washington States constitution as well. 
Any idea where the model came from ?

>     A.   Ordinances of any political subdivision of this state
>          relating to the transportation, possession, carrying,
>          sale or use of firearms in this state shall NOT be in
>          conflict with this chapter."

WA also has limitation on subdivisions of the state making ANY gun laws that 
are more restrictive than the state.  All Arizona needs now is a CCW and all
WA needs is NFA weapons.

Rick B.
     ^ Not to be confused with Rick Kelly.  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:03:14 GMT

In article <1it58vINNgbq@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

>Your opponent is not actually a criminal.  If you use a gun
>against him, you will be the criminal.

Then what has he done that caused me to go to my final line of self
defense?  Guns aren't magical, they are an important part of a
comprehensive security plan.  I don't do things that make people
nervous and feel the need to defend themselves, I expect the same.

>
>Speaking for myself, I declare that:
>
>I will always give another human being nearly limitless benefit of the
>doubt before pointing a gun at him or her.  If it means I or
>someone in my family might die needlessly, so be it.  At least I
>won't kill needlessly.

If it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, then good.  We each have to
have our own morals.  Should we also take this to mean that if we knew
who you were and we saw someone assaulting you we shouldn't intervene?
Fine as well, I wouldn't want to burden your conscience needlessly.

Please don't make the rest of us follow your morals.  They're less
likely to get stomped on that way.

BTW, My comments about your decision to hide behind PAX, made in email
stand.


-- 
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: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:27:48 GMT

In article <9301042000.28@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

|> >Wow, what an incredible asshole I must be to insist that the police 
|> >assume that citizens are innocent until they are proven guilty.  What 
|> >would America be like if that were, like, a general rule or something?
|> 
|> How would you have them do this if there were no licensing procedures
|> for guns?  How do you screen out people who already have a criminal
|> record?

Frankly, if someone is convicted of a crime, and serves the sentence society
has dictated, I have no problem with them buying anything over the counter, guns
or otherwise.  In other words, if someone is walking on the street, he should
have all of his rights.

This does not, however, mean that I think that society currently dictates
appropriate punishment for crimes.

When 90% of all murders are committed by persons with prior convictions for a
violent crime, it's time to ask ourselves some questions:

1.  Do we have any proof *at all* that _most_ violent criminals can be
rehabilited?

2.  Why are we letting violent criminals out again and again?

3.  Who benefits from following such an obviously stupid course of action?

4.  Why are we focusing on the tools used by violent people, rather than doing
the rational thing, and focusing on the violent people?

5.  Who benefits from focusing on the tools?

6.  Where's the money?

Defy authority.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
From: boucher@csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:58:26 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: affirmed.csl.sri.com

In article <1992Dec22.200700.10040@nsscmail.att.com>, cel@nsscmail.att.com (clayton EDward LEIHY iii) writes:
|> >In article <1glvofINNc0o@roche.csl.sri.com>, boucher@csl (Peter K. Boucher) writes:
|> >>  2) The legality of PGP is not being seriously debated.  It's illegal.
|> 
|> As a new reader of talk.politics.guns, could someone
|> please tell me
|> 
|> What kind of gun is a PGP??
|> Is it some kind of a <G>un <P>rogram??

TPG was included in this discussion because the arguments that were put
forward by people trying to get ``crypto-control'' laws passed looked
alarmingly similar to the arguments of gun-grabbers.

PGP could be used to encrypt a list of your guns, so that, if worse
came to worst and your guns were banned, you could keep an inventory
without fear of gun-grabbing gestapo goons being able to read it.

Of course, I wouldn't recommend that, because it's illegal.

-- 
Peter K. Boucher
--
RIPEM public key available upon request.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:21:38 GMT

In article <9301061155.03@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>If reported cases of gun violence are all sensationalized nonsense, then
>I guess no one needs guns.

Whether one "needs" a gun is irrelivant.  The right to self-defense is a 
natural right.  The right to keep and bear arms is a consitutionally 
protected civil liberty.

A "lack of need" does not imply that prohibition is just, or necessary.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: btree!hale@UCSD.EDU (Bob Hale)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: gun control
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:49:50 GMT
Organization: Brooktree Corporation


The following letter is reprinted with permission from the January 1993
issue of "The Blue Press" published by Dillon Precision.  It appears in
the Letters section on page 4.

Begin inclusion...

Dear Mr. Dillon,

Thank you very much for The Blue Press newspaper I receive at home.

I follow the letters section, together with your writings on the
right to bear arms.  I am keen on reloading, handguns, and also I
try to collect ex-military bolt rifles.  You can't imagine how many
laws and restrictions I must comply with here in Italy.  We got three
law changes in six months on the available number of arms permitted
each person (at present eight rifles and three handguns only for
those who get an authorization issued after a psychological and
legislative examination and a payment of about $350 per year).

The number of rifles was six before and then unlimited just for
four month's time.  Now that the government decided to limit the
number of the owned rifles from unlimited back to eight we were
constrained to sell our "toys" to someone or to consign them to
the police.  These are the "advantages" given to the law respecting
citizen who must register every rifle, handgun, airgun, crossbow, and
knife he buys to the authorities.  Of course the "goods" must follow
every rule and log everything they get while the "bads" can buy
their forbidden shooting irons abroad or at the black market.  They
do not comply with rules or government restrictions aimed only to
piss off the respectful man and reduce step by step his freedom to
follow the preferred hobby.

Last statistics in Italy showed that we are second in the world
for the number of murders (after USA) so we can plainly see that
all the restrictions, the full prohibition to carry handguns and
the complete control on the arms owned by good citizens do not
give the hoped results on safety improvement.  With the Mafia
raging everywhere we get even more "funny" laws issued by brainless
ministers in Rome: i.e., the prohibition to use hollow point bullets
for self defense; like to say, wound them and let them kill you with
forbidden catridges.  Of course you will die in the respect of law.

In conclusion we, in Italy, lost our battle against the crime with
the dumb help of the government and anti-gun laws (actually I don't
think there was a real battle).  In the USA you are still in time - 
don't let the blind people cancel your rights on gun matters and
drive your country into the same hopeless situation as Italy.

	Yours faithfully,
	Piero Paolini
	Viareggio, Italy

...End of inclusion

Sobering thoughts from abroad.

Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu                       ...!ucsd!btree!hale@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 20:33:01 GMT

In article <9301061202.15@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
[snip]
>>Does Kelly contend that "convicted murderers and armed robbers" would not
>>have easy access to 'alternative' weapons sources should conventional gun
>>shops require background checks, letters of reference, fingerprints,
>>waiting periods, and a kiss on the cheek from the local police chief?
>
>Ah, but what I have been hearing here is that there should be no laws 
>governing the sale of weapons.  That the sale of a weapon should only
>hinge on whether the buyer has the money in his/her hand.

Note how Kelly avoids the question and attempts to change the subject.
Can Kelly show some old posts where people suggest that "there should be
no laws governing the sale of weapons"?  Or is Kelly confusing "no laws"
with "fair, effective, non-intrusive, non-abusable laws"?

+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      | "1935 will go down in history!  For the first time, |
| NRA               ILA | a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our   |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com | streets will be safer, our police more efficient    |
|                       | and the world will follow our lead into the         |
|                       | future!"  - Adolf Hitler                            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: archer@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Firearms article in Jan '93_The Atlantic_
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:26:09 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <vtessier.726811118@vela> vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Vince Tessier) writes:

>dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) writes:

>>-> as those involved in getting a driver's license.  As the laws are now
>>-> written, a blind man can buy a gun."

>> And why not?  As long as they're not mentally incompetent or a
>>convicted felon, any American adult can own a firearm, subject to local
>>laws.  A blind person might not be able to shoot at targets, but there's
>>no reason they can't buy or sell, collect, or just have one because they
>>want to.

>Certainly, why not?  A magazine writer (Ayoob, I think) recommends a 
>big-bore handgun loaded with blanks as a self-defense weapon for the
>blind.  Fine with me ... the victim can blast away, knowing he can't
>hurt anyone, while the perpetrator is wondering what the hell's going
>on, or is mightily surprised if he knows his victim is (supposedly)
>defenseless & unarmed.

I had a blind aquaintance who was a respectible shot with a shotgun at close 
range.  He used a heavy woodblock with a bell on the front and a beeper on 
the back for target practice.