HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:20:05 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Dec16030320@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>You seem to have an opinion on what a SNS is.  Let's see your
>definition.
>
>> It just seems to me that the definition is far too sloppy to be very
>> meaningful.  The above defintion seems to apply to nifty target guns as
>> well as crappy homebuilt guns.  You know, pieces of water pipe taped to
>> a board with a nail to fire the cartridge.
>
>> So, Tim, what exactly is a "Saturday Night Special"?
>
>No, it's your turn now.

I'm coming into this late, but I've always heard that the term derived
from the common expression for a "gun used in niggertown on a Saturday
Night." That's usually cheap, since niggers didn't have a lot of money,
and generally small and concealable since they're mostly used for shootings
in illegal after hours honky tonks.

Note to African Americans, 'nigger' is used here in a historical context
and is not intended as a slur on your ethnicity.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Rep. Schumer letter regarding FFL's
Originator: hes@sparcler.cc.ncsu.edu
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:08:46 GMT

From the letters section of the 12/15/92 Washington Post

  The Nov. 29 front-page article "Hit or Miss Control of Firearms
Sales" was on target in its conclusion that federal law regarding
firearms licensees is inadequate for law enforcement purposes.  It
misses the mark, however, to the extent that it places any blame on 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.  The reason for the
state of the law is intimidation by the gun lobby.  But with 70
percent of the 25,000 annual homicides committed with firearms, we 
can no longer afford to succumb to National Rifle Association 
bullying.

  The article correctly stated that ATF must issue a federal license to
deal in firearms, regardless of whether the applicant would be in
violation of the laws of the state or local jurisdiction.  What the
article did not report is that repeated efforts during the last Congress
to change this law were turned back by the NRA and its supporters.

  A provision was included in the committee version of the comprehensive
crime bill that would have prohibited issuance of federal licenses
unless they were in compliance with local law.  ATF supported this
provision.  However, it was removed from the bill, under heavy NRA fire,
before it reached the House floor.

  I reintroduced the provision, and it was favorably reported by the
subcommittee on crime and criminal justice, but saw no further
legislative action.

Charles E. Schumer
Washington
(The writer is a Democratic representative from New York and chairman
of the House subcommittee on crime and criminal justice.)

  Does anybody know more about this subject?

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mdeering@agsm.ucla.edu (Michael Deering)
Subject: Re: For gun control? No not really.
Organization: UCLA, Anderson Graduate School Of Management
Date: 18 Dec 92 08:31:14 PST

In article <1992Dec17.205106.9329@u.washington.edu> larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:
>merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>He got 9 clips off, 10 rounds per clip, in under an hour.
>>The weapon was not modified by Wayne so it was semi-automatic.
>>Killing two wounding four. He put the gun down and surrendered.
>
>Please!  Clip != magazine.  I know it is picky but the correct name for
>that little thing you fill with cartridges and insert into the 
>weapon is a magazine.  Lets see now..  (10*9)/60 is approximately 40
>seconds/round.  This is a sustainable rate of fire for a muzzle loader.
>
>[...]
You are absolutely right, clip != magazine, but the author is correct.
The SKS uses 10 round stripper CLIPS to charge the fixed magazine.  Kinda
like the old M1 Garand.  You're not being picky, you're just plain
wrong.


Mick
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: damiel@netcom.com (Paul Theodoropoulos)
Subject: A&E "Killing Culture" - surprise
X-Spook-Fodder: hero heroin tree shrub bush birth life death FBI CIA NSA
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:17:11 GMT


i must say i was rather pleasantly surprised by the cable network Arts &
Entertainment's Investigative Reports: The Killing Culture, shown last night.

the bulk of the show was an examination of the history of the use of firearms/
deadly force in america, with some contrasting info on canada and comparisons
with japan and switzerland.

by and large, the show made the point that the presence or absence of guns
has little to do with the amount of violence in a society - at least on a 
phenomenological level.

very strong arguments _against_ gun control were presented, which was
refreshing in the extreme. the anti-gun position was stated, but it was 
given rebutted at each time. amazing! i don't think i've ever seen a show
that was as rational in its examination of the issue - focusing on the
*culture* of violence as the prime effector, and not on those evil guns.

they even gave real rebuttal to the seattle/vancouver study, pointing out
the flaws present.

of course, i watched this on tape at 1:30am, so maybe i was a little fuzzy
on it, and read too much into it....














-- 
paul theodoropoulos     damiel@netcom.com     (hooools@well.sf.ca.us)
       Cosysop - Threat Management Institute BBS 707 935 1713 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: goguenm@bach.udel.edu (Matthew L Goguen)
Subject: Re: The Knee Jerks in MA
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:57:08 GMT

In article <75777@apple.apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
>If one human is intent on killing another, don't you agree they just might
>keep trying until they succeed?  If you block one of their routes to success
>does that mean you stopped them?  Just what can you do to stop someone
>from killing you anyway?  Deny them access to guns?  You're trying to solve
>the symptom, not the disease.

  Guns are a weapon of choice, because they are simple to use and reliable
like any valuable tool should be.  If my access to guns was removed or
taken, I could build an electrically assisted magizine fed cross-bow,
which would be just as dealy if not more deadly, since a bolt will penetrate
body armour, and the like with ease.  If you want a weapon, you can make one
as easy as one, two, three and their is not a thing that the peoples 
republic of Mass, or CA and do to stop it, let alone any police officer
short of terminating your existance.  It is sad to phrase things this
way but it is a reality, maybe, someday I will be able to put my pistol 
in the small of my back and go cross country without fear of having it
confiscated by an over-zealous officer of the law, I doubt it will happen
any time soon but I'd take on a test case if you could get someone to pay the
laywer fees for me.
Matt Goguen
From U. of Delaware: The land of insanity and red brick sidewalks.
goguenm@bach.udel.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: registered gun confiscation examples wanted
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:12:57 GMT

<In article <1992Dec10.200918.19970@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

<   Would like some examples where registered guns were confiscated.
<   Thanks.

	Well, off the top of my head, there are some cases
	which may or may not fill the bill:


*****	New York City, this year, gave owners of so-called
	"semi-automatic assault rifles" a choice of removing
	them from the city, rendering them permanently inoperable
	or turning them in to the police. NYPD has required
	individuals who claimed to have moved the now-banned
	firearms out of NYC to sign affadavits; the police
	have also asserted they will "check up" on individuals
	as well.

*****	Great Britain registered guns for many years; in 1988-
	1989 a ban on semi-autos was passed. Owners had a choice
	of rendering them permanently inoperable or "selling"
	them to the government for a token amount; I suppose
	that selling a $1,000 rifle to the govt. for $100
	isn't really a confiscation...but it's quite close.

*****	New Jersey banned "semi-automatic assault weapons"
	in a similar manner as NYC with similar results;
	individuals in that state who owned banned guns
	have allegedly been called by the NJ State Police
	and asked what the disposition of the firearm in question
	was.

	I believe that similar situations arose in Cincinnati,
	Ohio, Morton Grove, Illinois and Washington, DC.

	These cases may not fit the request, however, as in
	each case owners of registered firearms did have a
	choice; they could convert the guns to paperweights,
	move them out of the geographical area OR hand them
	over to the authorities.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rrw@philabs.philips.com (Roger White)
Subject: Re: Yoshi Hattori
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:04:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.173458.5666@netcom.com> damiel@netcom.com (Paul Theodoropoulos) writes:
>In <If9muI_00iV2I0mngj@andrew.cmu.edu> Rikiya Asano <ra01+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

Deletions


>
>
>my god. 
>
>a lengthy screed on proper use of commas, written in some of the worst 
>english i've ever seen. never mind that the writer is incorrect in his
>presumptions of proper use of commas.
>
>and while i'm willing to give slack to someone who is still learning the
>language, it strikes me as at once arrogant and pitiful to read such
>misinformed nonsense written under the pretense of being a lesson in proper
>english!
>
>
>i can only hope that it was meant as a joke....
>
>



Scoot over to soc.culture.japan and take a look at some of Mr. Asano's
postings when he is not including t.p.g.   His English is pretty good.  He's
putting y'all on guys.  That is one sick puppy there.  Just ignore him.

Take care,

Rog
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Nightline defines order of gun evil-ness.
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:36:40 GMT
Organization: The Cat Factory

In article <PA152548.483.723996805@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA152548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
}In article <1992Dec9.231506.17178@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
}>BTW, anyone who thinks the best government is no government should take a
}>look at any recent news broadcast about Somalia and learn the real meaning
}>of anarchy.
}>
}That depends on your definition of "best."  The tax-rate in somalia is VERY 
}low right now.  ...

That depends on your definition of "tax." The warlords running the country
could doubtless make a case for the "protection" money they collect being
a tax.

}... But they are paying a heavy price for it.  ...

I'd rather pay my taxes, thanks.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                Do not meddle in the affairs of
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483  dragons, for you are crunchy
Santa Monica, CA  90405                        and go well with ketchup.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Re: Rep. Schumer letter regarding FFL's
    <1992Dec17.143836.28760@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:12:06 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>As far as I can tell, local law enforcement would have complete
>discretion on whether or not to sign the FFL application.

  This is obviously the case, as demonstrated by our attempt at getting
  Class III signitures here in Lexington Kentucky (where our Cheif of Police
  and Mayor know more than our Founding Fathers).
  Did you ever get that letter from Wayne Miller added to the archives Larry?
  In this letter, the head of the BATF NFA branch comes right out and says so.

>I'm sure we'll see this bill resurrected next session, and I'll bet
>it passes.  If you're thinking about becoming an FFL, do it now before
>you get screwed.
>Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: A Coffee-House Conversation with an Imaginary Nadja
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<LAMBERT.92Dec15191656@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1gnvd8INNh42@roche.csl.sri.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:37:41 GMT

>>>>> On 16 Dec 1992 19:18:00 GMT, boucher@csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher) said:
> NNTP-Posting-Host: affirmed.csl.sri.com

> (Tim Lambert) writes:
> (Peter K. Boucher) said:
> |> > (Tim Lambert) writes:
> |> >>Kennesaw Burglaries 1976-1986
> |> >>76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 48 85 86
> |> >>41 21 22 35 35 54 35 35 29 32 70

> |>> What is this, a joke?  The graph you've drawn represents a
> |>> generalization of the shape of the graph made of the numbers you
> |>> supply.  Are you hoping people won't look at any but the first and
> |>> last of the series?  The numbers are increasing from 77-81, take a
> |>> sudden dip in 82 (the year the law passed), stay down from 82-85
> |>> before rising again in 86.  Increases followed by a dip followed by
> |>> more increases.

You seem to have left out a year (76) in your description of the data.
I can also leave out a year and get an equally valid description.

41 21 22 35 | 35 35 35 29 32 70

Let's see, a bit of a dip, then flat, then another dip, and then an
increase.

> Knock, knock, knock...  Hello?  Anybody home?

Give it a rest, Peter.

> I made no claims, but simply read the numbers you supply.  If you read
> them, you will see that you should stop using them try to support claims
> that they contradict.

Oh I see, you don't claim that Kennesaw law had an effect on the
burglary rate, you are merely telling us that the numbers went up and
down.  How boring.

> In this article, as well as the others in this thread, you appear to believe
> that people will read only your wise pronouncements, and pay no attention to
> the facts.  You claimed that the Kennesaw law, passed in 1982, "clearly" had
> no effect on the burglary rate, and you used the above numbers as evidence
> to support your claim.

> So which is it?

> 1. You didn't read the numbers before posting them.

I did read them.

> 2. You didn't understand them.

I do understand them.

> 3. You hoped that your readers would fall into 1. or 2.

I hope that my readers will read them and understand them.  It's
unfortunate that you do not.

Tim

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Nightline 12/19/92 - Somalia
Summary: Ted Koppel pushes ABC's agenda.
Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 07:48:34 GMT

	I found it very "entertaining" to watch Ted Koppels interviews in
tonight's nightline. The overt subject was Somalia, and he interviewed
several relief workers and a high-level Marine officer.

	Ted kept on trying to bring the issue around to "disarming the
people" of somalia. Several times he said "we have to get the guns out of
the hands of the people" and that one of the top priorities should be
getting the weapons out of the country.

	The Marine repeated that what they wanted to do was get the crazy
maniacs who shoot up everybody in sight, rather than to disarm everybody
they encounter.

	At one point after Ted Koppel tried to get him to say they would
take away all the guns, he replied "What we have here is the same sort of
problem as we have in the United States. The law-abiding people have put
away their weapons, and now they have no means to defend themselves against
the armed criminals."

-- 
                      When all else fails.... RTFM


technews@iitmax.iit.edu                           kadokev@harpo.iit.edu
                         My Employer Disagrees.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Caughill <Caughill@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: The basic problem with anti-gun nuts.
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:06:50 GMT

In <1992Dec16.000100.22277@cs.mun.ca> robin2@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Robin Collier) writes:

>Boy, you really seem to think its everyones God given right to bear arms
>Well, I guess I can't really associate with some of the problems you
>may have in your neck of the woods, since not even the police carry guns
>here.  But mind you, they can do some real damage with a baton.  
>Thats Right!  The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is the only police
>force in North America that doesn't carry arms.

>Robin Collier
>robin2@garfield.cs.mun.ca

Thanks. Now I know where to go if I ever want to rob a bank. 
(Just kidding.  :-)   Although I do wonder how your police force deals with
violent crime.)

Mike Caughill
-- 
Caughill@mixcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: For gun control? No not really.
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:26:04 GMT

>My position then is I shall arm myself. I will protect
>myself and the ones I love. I also want to put a 

Wise regardless of what the gun laws are.

>fully automatic weapon on my vehicle(to protect against
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not a very effective choice. It would be too hard to aim and not
selective enough. Carrying a handgun with which you are well practiced
would be more effective.

>Car-Jacking), I further want to install  various 
>security systems, television cameras, motion detecters,

A well thought out security system is a good idea but remember to
choose each part of it based on how it increases your security. Be
very selective.

>electric fences, and yes many fully auotmatic weapons

Again unless you expect the marines to come over the walls a more
selective weapon would be a better choice. Depending on other factors
(such as the layout of your dwelling) Handguns, shotguns, lever action
and semi-auto rifles are probably better choices.

>to protect my caslte. I want to band together with 
>my neighbors and form/hire a private police force

Well having neighbors watch out for each other is good I don't see
the point in a police force. You guys can protect each other yourselves.
Can't beat personal involvment.

>that has full police powers(carrying fully auto guns), since I do not see

You seem to be kind of hung up on full auto. Yes they are fun to
own and shoot but they are really only useful in a small subset of
tactical situations. So in some milita actions you might want to use
full auto mode but not in normal policing or self defence.

>the current police as a protective agency when 
>my life or others I care about lives are threatened.

You are correct about that. At best they are janitors to clean
up the mess and cart off the bodies.

				mike
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Crime and punishment (was Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders)
Keywords: FFL, criminals getting FFLs, HCI agenda
Date: 13 Dec 92 19:20:55 GMT
    <1992Dec13.012057.16856@socrates.umd.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

ice@socrates.umd.edu (Fredrik Nyman) writes:

>I wonder, though, if our schools are up to the task of teaching basic
>human values like compassion and love for your fellow man.  After all,
>our schools (and what they teach) tend to mirror our society in
>general, and society's public figures, who so often are role models,
>rarely exhibit these human values.

 That brings up a good point.
 Our schools are actively brainwashing young children to be anti-RKBA!
 An example would be the elementary civics text-book entitled: "Our Rugged
 Constitution". Seems as though it was a "standard" text book for many years.
 In 1969 (I think) the text of the Second Amendment was replaced with a
 paragraph that went something like: "...today, theres not much reason to fear
 an army taking over our country, so theres no reason to own guns.."
 The details on this article are from memory. I think I have it somewhere.
 Anyhow, I get the impression that the schools "teach" more than the "3 Rs"
 thesedays.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Pro-choice/pro-gun stuff (was Re: Clintons plans to eliminate guns...)
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:19:41 GMT

Don;

I want to address this one statement without blowing up the abortion
thing again. I think that I know you well enough to be sure that
I can do this but I want the others out there to know what I am doing so
we don't get tied up in the issue itself.

>Look at the Presidential election that just passed.  Clinton got, what,
>41% of the popular vote, compared to Bush's 37% ?  Well, I sincerely
>believe that, if the GOP had dropped its opposition to abortion, Bush
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I don't know. Maybe. However a fairly large percentage of his
supporters were strongly pro-life. He might well have lost a large
portion of his support from that voting block. True they might have
made choosen him on other issues (the lesser of two evils syndrome)
but I wonder if some would have just not voted for a presidential
candidate since in their view none was qualified. As for picking
up pro-abortionchoice voters. I have heard that conservative pro-
abortionchoice people exist I just have never met one. And of course
there were other issues as well which effected peoples choices.
For that matter I think I could have gotten several people I know
to vote Libertarian if Marrou had been pro-life.

In short you may be right but I don't think it is that clear cut.

Interesting aside...In my congressional district the only candidate
that was pro-life and the only candidate the was pro-2nd was a
Libertarian. He had to run as a write in because the republicrats
challenged his pettitions and he didn't have enough signitures.

>would have gotten a LOT more votes, would have won and our 2nd amendment
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>rights would not now be in danger.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I _know_ that this is an oversimplification. I might accept in
less danger but not totally free of danger. BTW y'all second ammendment
rights are GONE in the peoples republic of Illinois.

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: skrone@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (stuart.krone)
Subject: Re: registered gun confiscation examples wanted
Followup-To: t.p.g
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:41:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.34052.5918@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>>Would like some examples where registered guns were confiscated.
>>Thanks.
>
> I heard the NRAs Mr.Gartiner talk about the Cleveland case. Where
>registration was actually a prelude to confiscation. It did happen.
>

New York City