HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:31:36 GMT

<In article <1992Jul27.175025.173@lrc.edu> blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:
<Man is inherently wicked 

	Yes.....this isn't news, is it?

<and prone to sudden acts of random violence against 
<his neighbor...

	Some are more prone than others; people who kill
	often have a record of violence towards others
	reaching back years.

<a puny wimp with a small dick feels macho when he has a steel
<rod that can spit fire and deal death in his hands.  

	Can we assume you are writing from personal experience,
	here?

	You *are* aware of the growing numbers of women who
	own firearms....care to make an equally sweeping
	generalization about them, too?

<It takes *more* guts to 
<love your neighbor than 2 pull the trigger and end his life in a splattering
<of blood and spongy grey matter. 

	Yes, it does. However, sometimes your "neighbor" doesn't
	leave many options; for example if your neighbor is
	a Nazi...or a looter in L.A.....

<A smoking hole in a shattered skull is *no*
<way to solve diplomatic problems. 

	This is certainly true. Any violence should be regarded
	as the last possible option....but it remains an option,
	nevertheless.

<Most of your gun-owners have no brains and
<therefore are incapable of settling their differences with another using (of
<all things!) civilized discussion. They'd rather blow the opposing fucker a-
<way and end the matter right then and their. They do love to play Rambo with
<their big guns. If only their brains were that size. Not to mention genital-
<reproductive organs. 

	You have a nice day, too!

	Is this your best argument against firearms?
	
	It is certainly a most excellent argument against
	*you* owning a firearm...or a car, power tools
	or any other machine that might cause injury.

<If we all discarded our guns & got rid of all our bombs
<and disposed of every stupid weapon we own we'd get along *much* better with 
<each other. 

	That certainly worked well for Abel......

<Perhaps we'd even have peace, love & happiness around the world.

	Not as long as "man, who is inherently wicked" is 
	in the world.

	You DID notice that this contradicts the opening
	of your post, didn't you?

<Besides...flowers are a *lot* nicer than guns. 
<So get rid of yours today.
<Peace!

	I especially like this ending, after all the sophomoric
	obscene insults.

	Somebody leave their terminal unattended for
	too long?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Civil Liberties Under the Second Amendment
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:53:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.145653.8475@m5.harvard.edu> borden@cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:

>In article <archer.183@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>
>>Re-read the Second Amendment, sir.  I submit to you that the introductory 
[snip]
>>-=-=-
>You reread it.  There's nothing in there to guarantee the entire people the
>right to bear arms.  

Try again.  Yes there is.

>It guarantees the right of the people to form a militia,
>and the militia has the right to bear arms. 

No, it does not.  It states quite clearly that because bearing arms is 
necessaru FOR a militia, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms 
shall not be infringed.

>That's not an opinion - it's just English.  Read it again: "A well-
>regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."  It 
>just doesn't say it.  

Yes, it does.

I've looked and looked, and I just can't see the 
guarantee you're>talking about.  It's just not there.

Yes, it is.  Look again.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: John of Keen Deductive Powers
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:46:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.212109.10172@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:

>That certainly sounds encouraging.  Has the NRA passed the hoped-for
>3 million mark yet?  (Membership has been growing at 20,000-50,000 per month
>this year.)

According to the letter from the president in last month's American 
Rifleman, we have passed the 2.8 million mark.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Stop
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:02:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.204059.17851@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
}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.

Further, if the torso shots didn't stop him he may be wearing body armor,
or drugged out of his mind.  Either way, a broken pelvis will at least
keep his hands off you.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {rutgers|pyramid|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:28:48 GMT

mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>I am a firm believer that ultimately direct methods are completely
>ineffectual without the proper environment to make them work.
>For example, would giving someone who was at risk of becoming a
>career criminal hope that he/she could get a well paying job
>(and the training to get that job) prevent him/her from choosing
>a life of crime?  Would the occasional failure of such a program
>cost as much as the utilization of more direct methods?

	The job thing has always failed because the majority of criminals
live the lifestyle they choose because it is what suits their personality.
They simply really enjoy rape, fighting, violence, killing, stealing, or 
whatever their particular hobby is.   When they have good jobs (the ones who
manage to not get fired for embezlement, insubordination or what have you) 
they maintain their criminal activities, because it is part of them, it is 
who they are.   
	The smart ones maintain both:  A real job, to explain their
income and to give them respectability with parole officers & relatives,
and suplimental criminal activities, their  "real life" to them.  To them, 
it's the people who don't steal, rob, and kill who are the real losers.  
There are quite a few criminals who also hold down full or part time jobs,
_and_ do crimes:  i.e. the garbage man who  checks out houses by day and 
does cat burglaries by night, the constuction worker who is also a rapist,
the security gaurd who helps set up burglaries, and on a less skilled level,
the part time burger flipper who is a mugger on his off days.

	I worked with an asshole once who is now in the IL state pen for 
26 years because he thought he could make $100,000 if he kidnapped a local
doctor's baby.   He had been a full time cook at the same place for years,
he had no kids, no "unusual financial needs", no anything that could have 
been fixed by any job training.  I assure you, no type of high paying job
nor training of any sort could have fixed his attitude problem: he wanted
to _take_, not trade, he was simply an asshole.

	He'll get out, get another cook job, and I bet he kills someone,
trys to rob a bank, or something again within a few years.

>What do Bush and Clinton think about these questions?

"Crime?  I'm against it.   Next question."   G Bush & B Clinton

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:14:42 GMT

In article <5166@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.232111.18191@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>> While I'm somewhat sympathetic to a universal RKBA, I don't believe the 2nd 
>> establishes any such thing. Propose a new amendment if you want...
>
>Luckily the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and has regularly and 
>consistently for over 200 years.

I don't think that's strictly true.  I believe that more modern
Supreme Courts have held (at least once) that the 'militia' clause
does indeed restrict, and that the National Guard meets that -- hence
there is no guaranteed right for anyone else to have weapons.

That is, after all, why waiting periods, etc., are constitutional.  Or
so the claim goes.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks)
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Organization: Telecom Research Labs
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:04:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.164216.2469@hawkmoon.mn.org> gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray) writes:
>First, you do not seem to understand the distinction between a right and
>a privilege.  Apparently many efforts at making this distinction clear have
>failed, possibly due to the inherent difficulties of communicating through
>the net.
>
>I doubt that I am equal to the task, so if my explanation does not seem
>clear, please go see someone in OZ who has a legal background; maybe an in-
>person visit will clarify it:
>
>Right refers to a a just claim, legally, morally, or traditionally.
>
>Privilege usually suggests an advantage not enjoyed by everyone.
>
>Driving is a privilege granted by the state and subject to its reasonable
>control.  Freedom of association is a right granted by God and only
>restrictable by the state under unusual conditions--such as a riot or natural
>disaster.
>
>One can easily construe that the right to freedom of association confers the
>right to travel.  After all, one cannot associate freely with someone not in
>your immediate presence, so if one is free to associate, one must be free
>to travel to do so.
>
>But the freedom to associate does not confer the privilege of driving.  One
>may walk, take a train, charter a bus, and so forth.  (As an aside, most
>of the so forths are far less expensive and less ecologically damaging,
>so one may reasonably argue that the state should discourage driving as much
>as it wishes and grant licenses on a more restrictive basis.  Not an
>attractive election plank, of course, which is why the liberals have done
>little with it.)
>
>I refer to the right to self-defense.  Read your Blackstone; the English
>common law precedents for the right to self-defense are eminently sound
>and predate both Oz and the Bill of Rights.  You seek to deny all people
>their right to self-defense and you have admitted it; but this is contrary
>to common sense, common law, and the Bill of Rights.

Please explain why it is that the right to freedom to associate does NOT
confer the privilege of driving as a means of exercising that right (driving
being the most efficient way for the average person to get around to 
associate with others); yet the right to self-defence confers the privilege
of owning and using a firearm (it being the most effective way for the average
person to defend themselves)?????

DJ...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: "Direct" methods of crime control
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:24:14 GMT

In article <archer.198@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.211525.14060@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:

>>>The issue of gun control legislation is an attempt at a direct
>>>method of controlling crime
>
>>This is some new meaning of the word "direct" with which I'm not familiar,
>>since guns do not commit crimes, nor are they necessary to commit them, nor
>>are the vast majority of guns ever used in crimes.  Just what does "direct"
>>mean to you?
>
>A "direct" method would be one that attacks the tools of crime or the 
>situation that allows it, rather than root causes.
>
>"Direct" crime control laws include gun control, restricted access to 
>locksmith's tools, requiring increased lighting outside homes, etc.

If this is an accepted criminological use of the word "direct", I'll
concede the point.  In my mind, though, the only direct method of crime
control is putting criminals in prison and keeping them there.  Anything
else is indirect.  Otherwise, where do you draw the line?  Any number
of common objects can be used as tools in a crime, and anything short
of full-scale fortification can be considered "allowing" crime.

Besides, isn't stripping law-abiding citizens of their self-defense
tools "allowing" crime?

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: KLECK: ANTI->PRO
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:44:05 GMT

Remember a few months ago when Lambert ridiculed me for being unable
to prove that Kleck was anti-gun before performing his study, but
then abandoned the anti-gun position?  Well, I've found the support I need.

     ------------------------------------------------------------

I just noticed the following in Kates' column in the June issue of 
Handguns.  It is from a (relatively) recent speech by Prof. Gary
Kleck (Florida State Univ, School of Criminology) to the Panel on 
the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior of the National Research
Council (National Academy of Sciences).  It helps us understand how many
have arrived at mistaken views regarding gun control.
(reprinted without permission)

Dr. Kleck:
"Up until about 1976 or so, there was little reliable scholarly information
on the link between violence and weaponry.  Consequently, everyone, 
scholars included, was free to believe whatever they liked about guns and
gun control.  There was no scientific evidence to interfere with the free
play of personal bias.  It was easy to be a 'true believer' in the advisability
of gun control and the uniformly detrimental effects of gun availability
(or the opposite positions) because there was so little relevant information
to shake one's faith.  When I began my research on guns in 1976, like most
academics, I was a believer in the 'anti-gun' thesis, i.e., the idea that
gun availability increases the frequency and/or seriousness of violent acts.
It seemed then like self-evident common sense which hardly needed to be 
empirically tested.

"However, as a modest body of reliable evidence (and an enormous body of 
not-so-reliable evidence) accumlated, many of the most able specialists in 
this area shifted from the 'anti-gun' position to a more skeptical stance in
which it was negatively argued that the best available evidence does not 
convincingly or consistently support the anti-gun position.  This is not the
same as saying we know the anti-gun position to be wrong, but rather that
there is no strong case for it being correct.  The most prominent 
representatives of the skeptic position would be two prominent liberal and
formerly anti-gun sociologists James Wright and Peter Rossi, authors of the
best scholarly review of the literature [Wright, Rossi, and Daly, "Under the
Gun:Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America", Aldine Press, 1983].

"I am completing a book on guns and violence in which I review the studies 
reviewed in Under the Gun, and many later studies, and present the results of
my own research.  Evidence developed since completion of Under the Gun as 
caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position.  I now believe that the
best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and always must
be), indicates that guneral gun availability does not measurably increase
rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U.S."

       --------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:36:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.050410.7430@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:

>Please explain why it is that the right to freedom to associate does NOT
>confer the privilege of driving as a means of exercising that right (driving
>being the most efficient way for the average person to get around to 
>associate with others); yet the right to self-defence confers the privilege
>of owning and using a firearm (it being the most effective way for the average
>person to defend themselves)?????

Actually, I can't.  I don't support the position that the right to drive is 
a right, it's simply as issue I haven't been convinced about.

In MY mind, the driver's license is simply a revenue-generating tool.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:59:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.151442.9016@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In article <5166@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul25.232111.18191@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>> While I'm somewhat sympathetic to a universal RKBA, I don't believe the 2nd 
>>> establishes any such thing. Propose a new amendment if you want...
>>
>>Luckily the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and has regularly and 
>>consistently for over 200 years.

>I don't think that's strictly true.  I believe that more modern
>Supreme Courts have held (at least once) that the 'militia' clause
>does indeed restrict, and that the National Guard meets that -- hence
>there is no guaranteed right for anyone else to have weapons.

>That is, after all, why waiting periods, etc., are constitutional.  Or
>so the claim goes.

     The last case the Supreme Court heard regarding the Second Amendment
specifically was in the late 1930's.  What it basically rules was that
sawed off shotguns could be restricted, because that weapon had no reasonable
use in the militia.  (They were, BTW, *wrong*, as the military has used and
continues to use such weapons.)
     Further, it is important to note that neither the plaintiff, nor his 
lawyer was available for the arguing of that case, so the court heard only
one side of the argument.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Guns Permits and NRA Perceptions (Re: Media bias)
Keywords: bias
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:23:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.154624.21078@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>Yes, we do have experience with permit systems.  One permit system deals
>with the legal purchase and ownership of machine guns, aka automatic 
>weapons.  There are thousands of people who legally own machine guns in
>the U.S.  They have to apply for and receive a permit.  To my knowledge
>there has been one single case of one of these guns being used to commit
>a crime, and that was by a police officer who murdered his wife (presumably
>he would have used his service revolver if he hadn't had an automatic
>weapon).
>
>How many crimes do you suppose have been committed with illegal automatic
>weapons?  I would say that the permit system has worked pretty well in the
>case of automatic weapon ownership.

I would say that it is both perfect, legal guns are not misused, and
useless, because the system hasn't affected access by people who do
misuse.

Interestingly enough, the machine gun law demonstrates that the gun
controllers really are gun banners.  The system was just as perfect
before 86, when the number of guns was frozen.  That permit system is
a gun controller's wet dream, and that wasn't enough.

Such action poisons the well.  It burns the good faith necessary for
productive legislation.  It changes moderates, like myself, into
extremists, because it shows us what "trust us" really means.

The gun control field is filled with opportunities for people who
sincerely believe in gun control, and not gun bans, to demonstrate
that.  Their failure to do so, their failure to check gun banners, is
revealing.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: H.R. 2922
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:11:48 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <viking.712542960@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>In <ATAYLOR.92Jul30150302@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>
>><In article <1992Jul25.223403.27105@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:
>><   The tax on 1000 rounds of 200 grain bullets would be nearly $21.50
>><   for primary lead and nearly $10.75 on secondary lead.  Stock up now.
>
>	Guess who will be royally torqued?  Black powder shooters.  My
>.45 shoots about a 230 grain buller, so I can imagine what that old
>buckskinner's .74 rifle tosses out!  Geez!

Well, you could be shooting a .45-70-405 or .45-70-500...the fellows
who go all-out with the various .50 single-shot rifles would be
hurting more than usual.






--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:17922 alt.politics.clinton:689