HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scott@ryptyde.cts.com (Scott McClure)
Newsgroups: ca.news
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: n
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:45:30 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Ryptyde TimeSharing, San Diego, CA

pal@xanadu.wpd.sgi.com (Anil Pal) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>And as for the assertion that there is no problem with accidental
>firearm deaths, that is simply preposterous.  Again, I don't have the
>figures handy, but I'll bet that accidental firearm deaths are in the
>thousands, and quite probably close to 10,000, annually.

Natural selection?  Darwin was right.....

8-)

>-- 
>Anil A. Pal
>pal@sgi.com	(415)-390-5279


Scott

-- 
INTERNET:  scott@ryptyde.cts.com                     | "Nuke the homeless gay
ARPANET:   ryptyde!scott@nosc.mil                    |  baby whales for Jesus!"
UUCP:      {crash, nosc}!ryptyde!scott               |    - bumper sticker
Newsgroups: ca.news,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Keywords: n
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:04:37 GMT

In article <71369@apple.Apple.COM> vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss) writes:
>scott@ryptyde.cts.com (Scott McClure) writes:
>
>>Won't happen.  Should we remove cars and alchohol too?  They (together)
>>are responsible for a more deaths each year than the number of US personnel
>>killed during the entire Vietnam War.  (oh, no... more stats...  8-))
>
>They rammed mandatory seatbelts down our throats and the things didn't
>eliminate auto accident fatalities.  Therefore we should repeal the
>seatbelt laws.

While Voss is correct in suggesting that partial solutions are
sometimes justified, that doesn't imply that gun laws are justified.

Let's go with the seat belt law example.  We now have some idea as to
the benefits.  If there are none, then sure, we should repeal it.  If
there are some, we should figure out whether or not the costs are
greater than the benefits.  (Some of us think that jailing or fining
people is a cost, beyond that associated with enforcement, and that
cost is unjustified unless sufficient benefit comes from that
jailing.)  If the actual costs exceed the realized benefits, we
should repeal that law.

I'm perfectly happy with using the SAME standard for gun control laws,
and with using it to evaluate proposed laws and "examples"; are
gun-controllers?

Take the UK and Canada experience.  Gun control's introduction was not
associated with a beneficial change in their crime rates, so we don't
have to look at the costs; it's a bad idea even if there are NONE.  Of
course, if someone wants to claim that those laws would work here even
though they didn't work there, let's see the evidence.

We can also look at US experience.  Some laws will work locally if
they will work at all.  (Carry restrictions are one example, as legal
carrying somewhere else can't affect the benefits of such restrictions
in a locality that has them.)  Even those subject to a "leakage"
problem will have some benefits locally if there are benefits to be
had.  (The drug war demonstrates how much leakage there will be.)

We can also look at the effects of laws to affect leakage.  Most
federal gun law is aimed at leakage.  It is illegal for people to buy
handguns outside their state of residence and the constraints on such
"interstate" long gun sales are almost never satisfied; no CA, NY, MA
resident qualifies.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss)
Newsgroups: ca.news
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: n
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:25:03 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

scott@ryptyde.cts.com (Scott McClure) writes:

>Won't happen.  Should we remove cars and alchohol too?  They (together)
>are responsible for a more deaths each year than the number of US personnel
>killed during the entire Vietnam War.  (oh, no... more stats...  8-))

They rammed mandatory seatbelts down our throats and the things didn't
eliminate auto accident fatalities.  Therefore we should repeal the
seatbelt laws.
-- 
Ron Voss          Apple Computer         I speak only for myself.
Newsgroups: ca.news
From: dstine@cisco.com (David Stine)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message are those of an
	      individual at SRI International, and do not necessarily
	      reflect those of the company.
Organization: BitBashers, Ltd.
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:50:50 GMT

In article <71310@apple.Apple.COM> vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>>It can mean gun bans, such as CA's, which banned a number of
>>semi-autos because of their appearance, guns which the state KNEW
>>weren't disproportionately involved in crime.
>
>The NRA succeeded in watering down this ban, and now certainly enjoys
>riduling it's effectiveness.

I think you have a rather simplistic view of events. What happened is the the
state legislators, failing to produce a a generic description of what an
"assault weapon" is, resorted to calling out specific manufactures and model
numbers of weapons.

Simple problem for the manufactures with a simple solution: change the firearm
design(s) in question and sell the resulting firearm under a new model
name/number.

As for why the CA AW "ban" is a joke: only about 5% (at most) of the weapons
which had been sold in the state have been registered as required. Most people
chose to simply ignore what is essentially a ridiculous law. 

In a _Washington Times_ article this past June 27th, it was reported that CA
DOJ officials have suppressed a report which shows that "assault weapons" are
rarely used in crimes. 

"...based on data collected from 21 city and county crime laboratories
throughout the state... assault weapons play a very small role in assault and
homicide firearm cases ... of the 4,844 (total) guns that crime labs kept
track of, only 45 fell under the designation 'assault weapons'" as defined by
the AW "ban".

Do the math. It comes to less that 1%.

Basically, the numbers that are now available on how many "assault weapons"
are involved in crimes are make the CA DOJ look so silly, that I can
understand why they want them kept quiet. It shows the ban to be what it was:
a knee-jerk reaction to the hype created by the media at the time of the
Patrick Purdy incident at Stockton.

dsa
"My opinions. You go get your own."



Newsgroups: ca.news
From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: Discussion control in California
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:45:46 GMT

In a prior article, David Sternlight (strnlght@netcom.com) writes:
> Josh Smith posts an elaborate sophistry arguing that guns don't harm
> anyone else. He has apparently not seen the accidental death statistics
> due to guns, where the victim is not the gun owner.

In my original article, I wrote:
> The government should not prevent you from owning a gun on the grounds
> that you might hurt yourself, for the same reason that the government
> should not prevent you from owning a car on the grounds that you might
> hurt yourself: you should bear the responsibility for deciding whether the
> risk is worth the benefit, and (corollary) you should bear the costs of
> your decision if you are wrong.

The last sentence is important here. If you harm either yourself or someone
else, you should bear responsibility for that, and I don't just mean moral
guilt. Many things in our daily lives are dangerous to both ourselves and to
others; we prohibit the ones that have an near certain chance of doing harm
(such as intentionally shooting a gun at someone). My decision to drive a
car puts other drivers at risk, and I expect that if I cause an accient in
which I am at fault, that I will suffer the consequences of my carelessness.
I don't ask the government to prohibit me from driving to make sure I don't
hurt anyone else, nor do I expect it to forgive me when I do. I expect it to
let me use my own judgment, unless I am shown to be incompetent to do so.

One could argue that guns are more lethal than cars, but statistics posted
by others suggest that this is not the case. One could argue that guns are
less useful than cards, but "useful" is a criteria that is hard to gauge
statistically and/or collectively (hard = impossible? perhaps).

Incidentally, I object somewhat to your characterization of my original
message as "sophistry". If you feel that my argument was "correct in form or
appearance, but actually invalid" (thanks Webster), feel free to explain
why, rather than simply asserting as much, or making snide remarks about
what statistics I may or may not have seen. I haven't seen the accidental
death statistics for guns, but if you think they're relevant and want to
talk about them, bring them up, don't just mention them as if they self-
evidently prove your point. If you don't want to bother, then don't, but
don't bother making unsupported (unsupportable?) assertions either.
-- 
original text by Josh Smith    ::   Comments, questions, etc. welcomed
irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu   ::   #include <std.disclaimer>
"If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe you'll
look like a dummy and people will try to catch you because, hey, free dummy."
From: syspb@smartstar.com (Paul)
Newsgroups: ca.news
Subject: Gun control in California
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:12:15 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: SmartStar Corp. / Signal Technolgy Inc.

Last year a new law was passed.  It imposed a 15 day waiting period for
the purchase of any gun.  Before, only handguns had the waiting period.
Now, even a single shot shotgun or .22 has the waiting period, plus
all guns are registered when you buy them and there is a $15 fee.

This came as a suprize to the residents of South Central L.A. during
the riots.  Alot of them went to the store to buy a gun to defend themselves.
Little did they know, there was a waiting period for all guns.  By the
time they could get their gun, it was too late.

I just wanted to pass this on, so you don't get caught in a similar
situation.  Every day they are trying to pass more laws, making it more
difficult to buy guns.  If you feel that you may need to defend yourself
someday, don't wait until the last minute.  Pretty soon, California may
be like England, where nobody can have a gun.  Don't get caught with
your pants down.

If you have never shot a gun before, make sure to take a safety training
course for guns.  A hunter safety course is required before you can get
a hunting license.  Contact the NRA, to find out about safety training
in your area. 
Xref: sparky ca.news:82 talk.politics.guns:19460
From: scott@ryptyde.cts.com (Scott McClure)
Newsgroups: ca.news,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:33:28 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Ryptyde TimeSharing, San Diego, CA

vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss) writes:

>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>>It can mean gun bans, such as CA's, which banned a number of
>>semi-autos because of their appearance, guns which the state KNEW
>>weren't disproportionately involved in crime.

>The NRA succeeded in watering down this ban, and now certainly enjoys
>riduling it's effectiveness.

Not enough.  They still have outlawed some fine weapons on a purely
bullshit basis.  Just another typical politically motivated band-aid
operation. 

>-- 
>Ron Voss          Apple Computer         I speak only for myself.

Scott

-- 
INTERNET:  scott@ryptyde.cts.com                     | "Nuke the homeless gay
ARPANET:   ryptyde!scott@nosc.mil                    |  baby whales for Jesus!"
UUCP:      {crash, nosc}!ryptyde!scott               |    - bumper sticker
Xref: sparky ca.news:89 talk.politics.guns:19482
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ca.news
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:52:13 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1992Aug12.161215.5552@smartstar.com> syspb@smartstar.com (Paul) writes:
>Pretty soon, California may
>be like England, where nobody can have a gun.  

Are you holding out the promise of a murder rate similar to England's
also?  How about a court system that operates with similar speed?
(Please be so kind as to *not* import the Offical Secrets Act.)

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
From: lestan1@srv.PacBell.COM (Larry E. Stanfel)
Newsgroups: ca.news
Subject: Accidental death stats for 1990
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:28:02 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell

Hi:

Regarding the number of accidental deaths from 
firearms versus other causes -- this is the relevant
data for 1990.  

  48,700    11,300  5,300     4,800  4,400   3,200    1,400   1,000
  motor     falls   drowning  fires  poison  choking  guns    poison
  vehicles                           lq/sld                   gas


Keep in mind that a substantial (but admittedly uncertain)
number of deaths attributed to firearms accidents are actually suicides 
which have been counted as "gun cleaning accidents" to spare 
the family the stigma of having a relative kill himself or herself.

Larry
Newsgroups: ca.news
From: mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:01:36 GMT

What bothers me the most about gun control advocates is their lack of
political courage. The constitution says that we have the right to
bear arms. It does not say we have the right to ask permission (i.e.
get a permit) to bear arms. It says that gun ownership is a right.
The gun control advocates obviously believe this is not so. If
they truly feel this way, then it is time for them to attempt to
repeal the second amendment to the constitution. Why don't they do
this? Because they know that the majority of Americans do not
feel the same way they do. They are a minority in this country and
so must be sneaky about pushing their political agenda. Their
argument couldn't stand up to real scrutiny and they know it.

-- 
Nick Sayer <mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us> | "Why can't we be the persecuter?"
N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA       | "Watch it, or I'll make you the jerky!"
37 19 49 N / 121 57 36 W             | 	  -- Lil & Angelica
+1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'   | 	     (preparing for the trial)
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: ca.news
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 15 Aug 92 23:46:38 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

>	The only difference gun control makes is that politicians
>and other criminals need not fear that their victims will defend
>themselves while they are being robbed.

Well, contrary to what some say, gun "control" does not mean
people can not buy guns.  They just have to be registered, wait
awhile, or whatever restrictions there are.
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
  - Luxury!  In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...
From: rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: ca.news
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Followup-To: alt.flame
Date: 12 Aug 1992 20:12:02 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: alcor.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug12.161215.5552@smartstar.com> syspb@smartstar.com (Paul) writes:
)If you have never shot a gun before, make sure to take a safety training
)course for guns.  A hunter safety course is required before you can get
)a hunting license.  Contact the NRA, to find out about safety training
)in your area, and where you can buy AK-47s and M-16s to shoot the cats
)that make noise at night and won't let you sleep.

5150
sounds toasty
Xref: sparky ca.news:76 talk.politics.guns:19408
From: vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss)
Newsgroups: ca.news,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:39:36 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>It can mean gun bans, such as CA's, which banned a number of
>semi-autos because of their appearance, guns which the state KNEW
>weren't disproportionately involved in crime.

The NRA succeeded in watering down this ban, and now certainly enjoys
riduling it's effectiveness.

-- 
Ron Voss          Apple Computer         I speak only for myself.
Newsgroups: ca.news,misc.misc
From: shedevil@leland.Stanford.EDU (Anne P. Mitchell, JD)
Subject: What Variable Can I Set for "Reply-To"?
Reply-To: shedevil@gw.home.vix.com
Organization: Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 15:36:42 GMT

Does anyone know what variable I can set within my .login to
automatically insert a "Reply-To:" line in my news and mail headers?
From: pal@xanadu.wpd.sgi.com (Anil Pal)
Newsgroups: ca.news
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: n
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:22:59 GMT
Reply-To: pal@wpd.sgi.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <asefuet@Unify.Com>, perry@Unify.Com (Perry Clarke) writes:
|> Now there's a gory study: A Comparison Of Total Fatalities Caused By
|> Ginsu Wielding Japanese And M-16 Wielding Americans.

It's been done.  I don't have the exact reference handy, but I beleve
it was done by Zimring, Hawkins, and Morris at the University of
Chicago.  They analysed police reports of attacks involving various
weapons, to compare lethality (or "effectiveness", to put it another
way).  Assaults with firearms were about twice as likely to result in
death as the next "best" method (knives).  So, as the gun lobbyists
say, if there were fewer guns around, people would just use knives...
and only half as many people would die.

And as for the assertion that there is no problem with accidental
firearm deaths, that is simply preposterous.  Again, I don't have the
figures handy, but I'll bet that accidental firearm deaths are in the
thousands, and quite probably close to 10,000, annually.

-- 
Anil A. Pal
pal@sgi.com	(415)-390-5279
From: scott@ryptyde.cts.com (Scott McClure)
Newsgroups: ca.news
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:52:41 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Ryptyde TimeSharing, San Diego, CA

sampson@nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) writes:

>In article <1992Aug12.161215.5552@smartstar.com> syspb@smartstar.com (Paul) writes:
>>                                       ...  Pretty soon, California may
>>be like England, where nobody can have a gun.  ...

>     You mean my wife will be able to stroll in downtown L. A. at 11:00
>P. M. without fear?  Gosh, we had better be on our guard to prevent some-
>thing like that happening!

>				Charlie

Yeah!  Guns are the only problem!  It's not like people will use knives
or anything.  No one has ever been held up with a knife, baseball bat,
or other dangerous object.  

N O T  !!!!


Welcome to the People's Republik of Kalifornia, where we don't solve
social problems, we just put a band-aid on them by taking away material
things.  What the hell, it keeps the liberals and the media (same thing?)
happy....

8-)


Scott
-- 
INTERNET:  scott@ryptyde.cts.com                     | "Nuke the homeless gay
ARPANET:   ryptyde!scott@nosc.mil                    |  baby whales for Jesus!"
UUCP:      {crash, nosc}!ryptyde!scott               |    - bumper sticker
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: ca.news
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:45:34 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

>>They are a minority in this country and
>>so must be sneaky about pushing their political agenda. Their
>>argument couldn't stand up to real scrutiny and they know it.

Gosh, didn't I hear these exact same words in some campaign speech?
Must be those closet conservatives denouncing the closet liberals...
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
  - Luxury!  In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: ca.news
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:27:46 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

>Pretty soon, California may
>be like England, where nobody can have a gun.

Oooh, what an truly depressing apocalyptic vision...   :-)
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
    "Only Nixon could go to China"  -- Vulcan proverb
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: ca.news
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: n
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:43:04 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

>They rammed mandatory seatbelts down our throats and the things didn't
>eliminate auto accident fatalities.  Therefore we should repeal the
>seatbelt laws.

Trouble with usenet, is you can't tell if someone is serious or not :-)
After all, one fatality would still mean fatalities weren't eliminated...

Anyway, does anyone have statistics on auto accidents before/after
the seatbelt law?  An interesting number would be percentage of
fatal accidents involving people not wearing seatbelts.  If this
were the same before and after, it might imply people are just
ignoring the law.
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
  - Luxury!  In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...
Newsgroups: ca.news
From: vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss)
Newsgroups: ca.news
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:21:26 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes:

>What bothers me the most about gun control advocates is their lack of
>political courage.

It seems to me that those who are crusading for controls are very
couragess, if they are "a minority in this country, and considering
the NRA's tremendous political clout.

>The constitution says that we have the right to
>bear arms.

Here we go again with the constitutional debate, with the NRA
wrapping itself in the flag.  Constitutional scholars themselves
can't agree on the meaning of the amendment.

>It does not say we have the right to ask permission (i.e.
>get a permit) to bear arms. It says that gun ownership is a right.
>The gun control advocates obviously believe this is not so. If
>they truly feel this way, then it is time for them to attempt to
>repeal the second amendment to the constitution. Why don't they do
>this? Because they know that the majority of Americans do not
>feel the same way they do.

This is silly.  It's much easier to pass laws than to amend the
constitution.  If a law passes, it's because a majority in the voting
body favors its passage.

>They are a minority in this country and
>so must be sneaky about pushing their political agenda. Their
>argument couldn't stand up to real scrutiny and they know it.

So why doesn't the NRA stoop to the same sneakiness to prevent the
majority of said voting bodies from passing gun control laws?  Just
what is this sneakiness?  Lobbying?  Gathering signatures?  Proposing
laws in legislatures?  Why do legislators pass such laws if they
know that a mojority of their constituents are against them?  Have
they been brainwashed by control proponents?  Why is the NRA 
ineffective in preventing such travesties?  Why doesn't it work
for the NRA to point out the flaws in such proposals and that the
majority of people are against them?  

Either the legislators believe that a majority of constituents are
in favor of such proposals, or the legislators themselves believe
in the proposals.  The only reasonable way to interpret the passage
of a gun control law is that a majority *somewhere* is in favor of it.

 
-- 
Ron Voss          Apple Computer         I speak only for myself.
Newsgroups: ca.news