HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: Demi-Public System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 06:50:02 GMT

lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

>>>>>> On 20 Aug 92 19:27:33 GMT, sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) said:
>>>George Lambert

>> Are you related to Tim "lean back an' enjoy it" Lambert?

>More fantasies from Mr Rifleman, I see.  Since when did expressing
>scepticism about the mish-mash of mangled pro-gun propaganda that you
>spout equate to advocating "lean back and enjoy it"?

My newsfeed here is intermittent, so I apologize in advance in I attribute
to you  positions you do not take.

Having siad that, I recognize your name as one of the Oz posters who
never saw a gun they didn't want to ban.  At least, that seems to be the
constant refrain from every Oz address--except Geoff Miller (?).

If, therefore, yo do not wish to allow people to have firearms, then it
follows you want them to do something else when self-defense is necessary.
Now, U.S. Dept. of Justice studies of victimization show that the safest
way to resist any kind of robbery, assault, or attempted homicide is by
actively resisting with a firearm.  Any other course of action is more
dangerous to the intended victim than active, with-gun resistance.

Furthermore, WRT rape, the same source shows that overall, rape is completed
in 35% of attempts, but only in 3% of attmepts when the woman defends herself
with a gun.

Other studies show that armed citizens use lethal force wrongly about 1/3
as often as "trained" police officers.

Lastly, there was once a common saying--now considered intensely
unfashionable that went, "When rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it."

Ok, connect the dots:  you want to ban all guns, especially handguns.
This will leave even more women (and others) defenseless.  This will require
that they follow other, more dangerous, less effective, less efficient
self-defense strategies, including the so-called "passive acquiescence"--
esentially, when applied to rape, "Lie back and enjoy it."  Incidentally,
the Handgun Control Book, by founder Pete Shields, says women "should give
their attackers what they want" and not resort to any self-defense.

And there you have it.  Your solution to wolves v sheep is to neuter the
rams, rely solely on the shepard--the only one that gets to carry
the stick and the only one the wolves don't try to eat--and, if you
are really a True Believer, hire dental hygienists for the wolves--wouldn't
want all that high-protein mutton causing periodontal disease. . .

Bill
-- 
gray@hawkmoon.mn.org
This site gets a fair news feed, but e-mail is more reliable. . . :-(
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:49:39 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) /  9:17 pm  Aug 17, 1992 /
>You're attaching an unduly negative meaning to "vigilante" here.  A vigilante
>is a private party that defends itself or others from crime, citizen or not.

No NONONONONO.

A vigilante is one who takes the law into their own hands and punishes AFTER 
the fact.  Self defense is not vigilantism!

Rick.
From: dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Summary: Just following orders.
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:04:00 GMT
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.


swatt%mickey@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes

Remember, the job of the Grand Jury was to determine whether a violation
of criminal law has been committed by the individual deputy in question.
They were not empowered to determine whether the SWAT team's procedure
or tactics were appropriate or reasonable.  The individual deputy entered
the house armed (1) in compliance with orders from his lawfully-appointed
superiors, and (2) [presumably] in accordance with tactical doctrines and
regulations governing the unit at the time.

Just following orders huh? Now where have we heard that bullsh*t excuse
for unforgivable crimes?

Personally, I hope the city gets sued into bankruptcy, and the cop too.
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Don Thompson                        |   I may be opinionated, but at least
Comshare Inc. dont@execu.execu.com  |   my opinions are my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2  (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:01:20 GMT

In article <4400218@iftccu.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.boeing.com
(Rick Bressler) writes:

> Neither did Tony pick up a submachinegun and go hunting for innocents to
> shoot.  He had the mp5 handed to him, was briefed about what was
> supposed to be a very dangerous situation, and sent in to PROTECT those
> kids.  Lighting, speed of events and a mothers actions precipitated a
> tragedy.

Just a question here, was Tony trained with the MP5?  If not, why would
they put a machinegun in his hands?  An inexperienced officer with a
machinegun, and innocents to protect... (or for that matter, why do
so even with an experienced officer?).  Why not a handgrenade?  (just
being ridiculous, guys...).  A machinegun doesn't seem a logical choice
for targeting, and stopping single targets... Too much chance of spraying
around the room, and hitting non-combatants.  Something seems funny here.
I think a semi-auto carbine would be a more reasonable weapon.  Any ideas?

> Bear in mind,
> Doctors and hospitals deal with life and death situations every day.
> They also kill about 160,000 people that wouldn't otherwise die every
> year.

And doctors are held responsible if their methods were excessive,
or incompetant.  And I believe a doctor could be charged with
Negligent Homicide, were he sufficeintly incompetant.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Trespassers
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:49:53 GMT

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> 
> 	BTW: After a few scary incidents of running off tresspassers, I
> have since started working in concert with a friend.  Said friend uses
> a scoped high-power rifle and hides in the trees.  If the situation turns
> ugly, I suspect a sniper will be a good asset to have.  My own actions
> will consist of flopping on the ground and trying to shoot from the prone
> position.

Reminds me of an interesting incident we had a couple of years ago..

We were just starting a morning hunt when our gang came across a bunch
of bozos camping in a clearing just off the trail.  My grandfather, the
owner, went into the clearing and explained that it was private
property and told them to clear out.  One of the bozos said "And what
will you do if we tell you to fuck off old man" and just as his cronies
started to laugh one of the guys in our gang yelled out "He'll lie down".

I guess they hadn't seen us until he spoke so they all turned around
and stared at the fifteen of us,  all with rifles.   We stood and
watched while they *very* quickly packed up.   The funny part was how
they became real slow and careful while they packed up their guns :-)

> The really ugly thing is that some people seem to justify
> shooting a landowner just because they want to hunt without asking
> permission.  I suspect these are the same dolts who don't even take their
> gun out of the case until deer season, and then have the cleaning and
> tuning done by a gunsmith because they are "too busy" to do it themselves.

There are a lot of people who believe that any wooded area is 'public
property' and shouldn't be owned by anybody.  There are also a lot
of idiots who just don't care about other peoples rights or property.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Washington state legislator's voting records
Date: 15 Aug 92 02:19:32 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug14.233946.14928@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>For those registered to vote in the state of Washington:
>HB 2537 was a standard "school zone" bill, which would have
>prevented CWP holders from carrying in the vicinity of a school.
>(Trivia question: how many schoolchildren have been unjustifiably
>shot on school grounds by holders of valid CWPs in the last twenty
>years?  Oh well, glad to see the House is working hard to solve
>this "problem".)

What kind of moron would have supported such a bill?  

Gummit = stupidity in motion
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:44:47 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Please see my sig for my opinion of the WoD.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.

The War on Drugs is a full-employment program for psycho/socio-paths.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:41:35 GMT

In article <cthong.713583502@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>to keep from having accidents in the home, a firearm should logically
>be kept out of reach of any body but responsible family members no?

So?

>and if this includes locking it up, tell me how it helps you if you need
>it in 10 seconds? 

No, that doesn't necessarily include locking it up.

The required measures are no more difficult to achieve than those
associated with other "dangerous" items, like knives, household
chemicals, toilets, bathtubs, matches, and the like.

And, there's even a "carry it" option.

Gun accidents aren't a significant problem.  (That's demonstrated by
the statistics.)  If you don't know that, you can't intelligently
discuss their "meaning" wrt gun issues.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19618 talk.politics.animals:7271
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:25:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <1992Aug19.011514.883@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
    [replying to John S. Van Etten]:
>
>In our local student paper, The Exponent, a group called Americans for
>Medical Progress Educational Foundation ran a full page ad claiming that
>the AR movement is trying to end experimentation on animals to find a cure for
>AIDS (March 31, 1992).  One major part of the ad was a photo of the AIDS quilt
>that was touring the country at the time (the quilt had names of AIDS victims
>on it).
>
>In a letter to the editor from Lisa Catapano, managing director, NAMES Project
>Foundation came this reply to the ad:
>
     [deleted quote stating that the NAMES project is in no way
      affiliated with "Americans for Medical Progress Educational Foundation"]

What is the position of 'the AR movement' on "experimentation on animals to
find a cure for AIDS" ?

Bob Straubinger 
Dept Pharmaceutics
SUNY Buffalo        "opinions above are mine, not those of SUNY"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: National Crime Database
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 18:31:44 GMT
Organization: N/I
Keywords: database, RSA, Staggers, instant

In article <1992Aug9.213005.16481@bluemoon.rn.com> grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean) writes:
[about a firearms-prohibited persons database on CD-ROM]
>to supply all gun dealers the disks would cost less than $1.50 each
>to make and should be distributed at cost. That is less than $8 a month,

(Ahem.)  Since limiting retail firearms traffic to the "good guys"
allegedly benefits society at large, should the costs be borne by:

     a)  society at large?         b)  retail gun dealers?
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:34:55 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss) /  6:31 pm  Aug 17, 1992 /
> Everone *knows* that the automobile accident rate would go down
> if we would just eliminate car and driver licensing.  It's just logical!

Come on, when have you ever heard of anybody failing a drivers test?  Even 
on the rare occasion some 16 year old does actually fail, they try again 
an succeed a week later.  How does this help?  Sounds like a people 
registration and revenue generator to me....  Of course, if it works
the 50,000 or so each year killed by must be imagination?  Thats double
the number killed by firearms....  And there are probably more guns in 
the country than cars.  Sounds like the cars are more dangerous... 
Logic you said?  It would appear that guns are safer.  Especially since 
the death rate due to LAWFUL guns is very close to 0!

Rick.
From: stedee@auto-trol.com (Steve Deemer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: UFO "October Surprise" and USA TAKEOVER?!
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:34:09 GMT
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation

In article <OTTO.92Aug12155011@tukki.jyu.fi> otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) writes:
>In article <1992Aug6.192350.27305@clpd.kodak.com> fischer@li.serum.kodak.com (Chris Fischer (x39613)) writes:
>   In article <1992Aug6.143155.25460@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>   >In article <8B91oB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> garys@bluemoon.rn.com (Gary Stollman) writes:
>   [gun comments from Gary's clone]
>   >In waht way are Canadians Germans UKers and Frenchman less "free"
>   >than americans.
>
>   To start with, they are not free to carry guns.
>
>Nor are we free to drive down the freeway in the wrong direction.
>It's all the matter of what is percieved as too dangerous to be allowed.
>
>I've never felt the need to carry a gun (even though I've been in some pretty
>tight spots), and I'm glad I live in a society where I don't have to.
>
>The fact that yearly much more people in the United States get killed by
>guns than in Europe of course has nothing to do with gun control, right ?
>-- 

Apparently not.  Most of the people being killed in Europe today are being
killed by rocket and mortar fire.  Of course, small arms fire is not too
far behind.  A Euro sniper just took out a US reporter the other day.
Snipers shot up a bus full of kids not long before that, killed two.

Europeans are pretty funny.  They go a few years with a low crime rate
and adopt a "we're cultured and civilized and you're not" attitude.  Then
they go off on a killing spree that leaves millions dead, millions more
maimed, displaced, starving.  Then they turn to us violent, uncultured
'Mercans for a handout.

I think that if you compare the violent death rates for the US and Europe
for the last 92 years, the US isn't even on the same chart with Europe.
Yet they regard *us* as violent.


______________________________________________________________________________
Steven Deemer               
stedee@auto-trol.COM      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:19:52 GMT

>Now the State Attorney General's office has decided not to prosecute
>the Deputy.  To quote the newspaper: "Greg Canova, the senior
>assistant state attorney general, announced yesterday that there was
>not sufficient evidence that Deputy Anthony Aston intentionally,
>recklessly, or negligently fired the shot that killed Robin Marie
>Pratt, 28."
>
>To my mind, this sort of incident can *only* be caused by reckless,
>negligent, or intentional action.  It's damn sure that weapon didn't
>fire by itself!

Even if there are no criminal charges filed, a civil suit can
be instigated!  Sue the bastards!

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: UFO "October Surprise" and USA TAKEOVER?!
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:25:16 GMT

 Steven Deemer wrote:
>Europeans are pretty funny.  They go a few years with a low crime rate
>and adopt a "we're cultured and civilized and you're not" attitude.  Then
>they go off on a killing spree that leaves millions dead, millions more
>maimed, displaced, starving.

  Steven one of the reasons that Europeans can have such a low crime rate
 is because they don't count anything that has a political motive (at least
 the Brits don't) that includes bombings in London, Northern Ireland....
  This type of selective statistical anaylsis can make numbers look any way
 you want. Just like when the media counts self defenses, justifiable
 police shootings and suicides in their murder with gun numbers. 

    Myron
  NRA, IPSC


 ***************************************************************

 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
 And are protected by the First Ammendment and guarnteed by the 
 Second.
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A random thought
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:43:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Blue Moon

grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross) writes:

>> Nope. Hitting the bear with a bunch of .223 bullets will make it
>>mad, not make it go away. Now, a .454 Casull (a handgun much more
>>powerful than a .44 magnum) can stop the bear...

>Hey, Grant, hamburger is cheaper at the local grocery store! ;-)  .454
>Casull, indeed.  8-)

 Hey, I like my Casulls (I have a pair of them). More effect and less
abusive to the shooter than the .445 SuperMag (I have one of those, too). 
I'd rather not have to shoot a bear though, I try to avoid being in
positions where I don't have other options.

 Note that the extraneous newsgroups are not getting this (sci.skeptic,
alt.activism, and alt.consiracy don't seem related somehow...)
-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

        Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control in the PR of Kalifornia
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:55:32 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Aug18.054037.26142@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!darwin.sura.net!mips!mips!decwrl!deccrl!bloom-beacon!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!sybok
>From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
>Subject: Re: Gun control in the PR of Kalifornia
>Message-ID: <1992Aug18.054037.26142@athena.mit.edu>
>Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: m11-113-3.mit.edu
>Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>References: <1992Aug14.194021.2631@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <2sefcxt@Unify.Com> <16847BBF.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:40:37 GMT
>Lines: 6
>In article <16847BBF.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>>     Laws regarding licensing and registering of automobile only apply with
>>regard to their use on private property.  There are no laws (or very, very
>                        ^^^^^^^ 
>You meant _public_, right?

     Yeah, yeah, yeah.
 
     I was late...

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Wow!  Media Objectivity!
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:48:24 GMT

I just saw something in the Aug. 12, 1992 Wall Street Journal that almost
made me fall off my chair.  In a P. 1 article entitled "Political Paradox -
People With the Least to Fear from Crime Drive the Crime Issue", the WSJ
actually says the following:

(WRT Bill Clinton)  "He called for the hiring of 100,000 new police 
officers and bans on some SO CALLED ASSAULT WEAPONS." (Caps mine, for
emphasis)

I know that the WSJ isn't a lefty rag like so many of the others, but
to see such a statement in ANY mainstream media publication is a pleasant
change.  Could it be that some of them are actually starting to listen?
This is quite a change from the kind of shit I've come to expect, like
the reference I heard on NBC not too long ago wrt "semi-automatic
machine guns".

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kapson@dip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: ACLU question
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:19:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.182228.25709@natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.174128.12260@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>
>>I'm just curious, how many NRA's members support all civil liberties?
>>For example, how many were pleased with the Court's flag burning
>>decision?
>
>Count me as one.  In fact, it was the attempt at a constitutional amendment
>to outlaw flag burning that made me get involved.  I could not believe
>how incredibly stupid the politicians were being.  Now that I pay attention
>on a regular basis I still can't believe how incredibly stupid they are.
>
>With that one display of feel-good false patriotism most members of
>the republican party lost my vote forever.  I now vote Libertarian.
>
>>- Carl
>
>-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)

Ditto.

+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| John Kapson   NRA IEEE ACM  |                                              |
|                             |   My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car.    |
| kapson@dip.eecs.umich.edu   |                                              |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Current attempt to repeal 2nd Amendment 
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: MITRE 
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:25:06 GMT


I know that Mr. Major Owens of New York made the original motion.  Who
seconded it?  And has there been anything at all said by supporters of
this move as to WHY?
-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party  
  Andre Marrou    Nancy Lord for  | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
  for President   Vice-President  | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns