HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Washington State gun buy-back
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:57:27 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

A gun buy-back program is being planned for the Seattle area.  It
is sponsored privately by an organization called "Stop the Violence",
which intends to collect $100,000 in private donations to buy back
guns at $50 each during the month of September.

Stolen guns will be discovered through a police check and returned
to their proper owners.  All other weapons will be destroyed.
Individuals surrendering guns under this program may remain anonymous
if they choose, and will be issued letters of amnesty from the King
County Prosecutor's office for any crimes involving the illegal carry
of a weapon, or of receiving stolen property.

The operation is being run privately due to a Washington State law
which specifies that confiscated guns must be sold by auction; since
the planners of this buy-back wish to destroy them rather than selling
them back into circulation, they are running the operation through a
private group and avoiding government participation.

The operation is endorsed by a number of government officials, including
Seattle Mayor Norm Rice and Police Chief Fitzsimons.  Anyone wishing to
contact "Stop the Violence" may use the following contact information:

	Stop the Violence
	Seattle Neighborhood Group
	500 Wall St., Suite 315
	Seattle, WA  98121
	(206) 728-0903

All of the above information comes from an article in the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, July 22 1992, page B2.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Gun Rights Advocates
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:58:09 GMT


In <Bs5ts8.Buy@acsu.buffalo.edu> Danger states:

|>Have you tested this? I am curious as to whether such a shape could
|>penetrate soft-body armor. Coating the ball bearing I assume would
|>make it no more armor piercing than a standard lead slug. Figure it
|>this way: a flack jacket can stop jagged pieces of metal from 
|>nearby explosions, but may or may not stop a smallarm round. This
|>definitely calls for some testing before trusting your life to
|>it in a firefight.

|Hmmm...no, I haven't tried this out quite yet.  Body armor is soo
|expensive and I get so few volunteers.

Kevlar body armor I've read normally carries an expiration date; if
so, I wonder if anyone with close contacts to police types might be
able to obtain an expired one to conduct tests.

Volunteers? Maybe milk jug filled with water?

|  The coating on the ball
|bearing is to reduce wear and tear on the barrel of the gun.  I had
|always assumed that non-deformity and high velocity was more 
|important for armor piercing than shape and I always use shotguns.
|Am I wrong?  I had thought that a slug shot from a 12 gau. would
|be enough to set most anyone on their ass, armor or no.

My assumption with soft body armor is that the material is strong
enough not to break (A weaved multiple-layer cloth matrix) as a bullet
impacts it and expends energy deforming itself. Since soft body armor
that can withstand hits by .44Mags and 12-gauge slugs is sold, one
assumes that some layers are penetrated by the stress of the bullet
impact alone; in the case of a blunt hard object like a ball bearing,
I would theorize that not enough localized pressure to break all the
layers would occur...

|>Some things you could try: I've read that Zinc-cast bullets of the
|>shape of "Arcane" i.e. a conical point in .45ACP are capable of
|>penetrating soft-body armor. American Rifleman many years took the
|>9mm sintered-iron bullets from 1950s era Czech surplus ammo, loaded
|>them into a .380 Auto case, and found that these rounds would penetrate
|>soft-body armor. In these cases, light weight combines with bullet
|>shape, or bullet shape combined with hard materials, offer AP capability
|>to a user.

|If I were to do this I would (to reduce costs) mold a plastic type
|bullet around a short pointed rod.  The molding would fall off the
|bullet fairly easily after being shot and the rod would do the
|damage.  Of course we could just stick with hollow points and fill
|them with nasties for a possibly better effect.

Several years ago FIREPOWER magazine had an article on silenced shotgun
shells. These utilised a finned dart constructed of a hard metal encased
in a two piece plastic sabot that was fitted into a machined metal
shotgun shell that contained the combustion products of the gunpowder;
the dart was accellerated by a metallic piston, which also acted to
seal in the gas. These would undoubtedly be what you would be looking
for to install in a regular shotgun shell.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:14:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu>, slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:

>    The NRA seeks to keep the AK-47 assault rifle legal to the public.
> That is enough for me to know they are misguided. Noone needs an
> automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense. Gang
> members however find it an excellent weapon for turf wars.

When was the last time you saw an assault rifle?  When was the last time
a legally owned assault rifle was used in a crime?  Do you know what an
assault rifle is?  Do you know what the difference between an AK-47 assault
rifle, and an AK-47 look-a-like is?  Do you wish to ban weapons based
on their appearance?  If so, are you a prejudiced bigot?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks)
Subject: Re: Foreign Interest in the US RKBA (was ACLU & 2nd)
Organization: Telecom Research Labs
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:20:56 GMT

In article <22JUL199211573854@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
>djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes...
>> ...
>>What percentage of eligible people actually vote in US elections? 
>
>I think somewhere between 50-60%
>
>Here it is
>>about 98%, 
>
>I find that number extraordinary.  This figure is more typical in 'democracies'
>where voting is enforced by the gov.

Yep, we have compulsory voting. A nominal fine is applied to those who do not
vote and do not have a good 'reason' for not voting. This is enforced by our
constitution and executed by a government department. It results in a greater
interest in the political future of the country. Contitutional changes are 
almost impossible to pass (historically) because of a conservative nature and
the compulsory interest in making any change.
Do you have a problem with this system? You can always vote informal if you
don't like any of the candidates.

DJ...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Stop
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:02:19 GMT

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

>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.

	Well, I was always told to state my opinions when the risk of getting
belted for them was low enough, and since I can't be hit through phone lines:

	I question Ayoob on this one.  When shooting an attacker, the recoil
is going to make the barrel point upwards.  If you can get off multiple shots,
if seems you should work from low to high so as to decrease the time it takes
to get back on target.  Thus, first shot to pelvic region, second shot to the
middle of the torso, third to the center of the chest.

	On a practical level, I doubt I'd be aiming well in a firefight with
the possible exception of an aimed first shot.  After that, I don't know how
I'd react.  I might just keep pumping rounds until the target quit moving
towards me, I might shoot and wait for another aggressive move while aiming
at vital body parts, I might just point and pull the trigger.  This last
is more likely, since in a situation where I'm afraid of my very life I
doubt I'll have time to take careful aim and gently squeeze the trigger.  I
may become particularly calm, too -- it's happened in similar situations not
involving firearms I've been in.  Who can tell?  Perhaps Ayoob has trained to
such an extent that _he_ can pull off a two-shot torso and then a one-shot
pelvic hit in short order, but I've no doubts of my inability to do the same.

	Side note: in the Navy, we were taught to lay our weapons sideways
and let the recoil do the work of moving the gun to spray an area.  This
was only taught with the M3 "Grease Gun," but it seems there might be a
bit of logic here to use in the above argument.  Most other weapons I
fired were considerably better at being aimed than the M3. ;-)

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From: dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:37:27 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul31.125519.22300@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul31.040916.18514@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (The Conservative) writes:
>> ...
>> I have one question to ask to all you hypocritical Demofarts!!

>  As a registered Democrat and an avid supporter of the RKBA, I have 
>one question to ask these overactive adolescent-minded idiots -

As for myself, ditto on all three of these points. 


>  Why do you want to alienate other supporters of the RKBA?

I've got the same question.

--
David Winters  
dcwst8@unix.cis.pitt.edu OR winters@vms.cis.pitt.edu

          Illigitimi non carborundum.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:00:11 GMT

In article <5054@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>But now people admit that the existing law is either not being enforced 
>or is unenforceable.  If the latter, then maybe another law IS the answer.

That doesn't follow.  If one law doesn't work or is not enforced, why would 
another one be any different?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:22:09 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Jul25.195818.3033@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de  
(Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
> Assault rifles are the weapon of the heavy duty psycho or major league
> crook or some jerk playing at being one.

Please share with us the source of your information that allows you to draw
these conclusions.
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Liberty
Date: 30 Jul 92 12:58:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Jul29.232627.2658@ms.uky.edu> uk09365@nx08.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:

>In article <1992Jul29.220230.1941@PacBell.COM> rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod  
>> Oh give me a fucking break.  As if the Founding Fathers knew
>> anything about *six-guns*, much less Uzis and rocket-launchers
>> and personal nuclear devices.  To claim that their 1789 view of
>> "arms" and "people" have any conceivable relevance to the social
>> conditions we live in, and the weapons of mass destruction that
>> are tearing our society apart today is truly to live in a "flim
>> flam reality".  The tragedy is that your obsessive ranting is
>> actually taken seriously by our idiot lawmakers.

>Rod,

>I assume that your post above represents the calm, articulate,
>rationality of the anti-gun lawmakers.  Of course, the Founding
>Fathers did know about *six-guns*.  They did not use a revolver
>or self-load design (although designs of semi-automatic, revolving
>cylinder and perhaps even full-automatic firearms were already
>in existence at least on paper.)  They did have multi-shot guns.
>Instead of bullets in 6 cylinders being aligned with and fired
>through 1 barrel, they had 6 barrels (or more) on one gun.

>Your inferences about "uzis and rocket-launchers and personal
>nuclear devices" indicates that you are the one going overboard
>with obsessive ranting.  Do you contend that the NRA or any other
>mainstream pro-gun organization explicitly promotes the
>unrestricted ownership of any of these (hint: even for semi-auto
>Uzis / lookalikes they are opposed to ownership by minors,
>felons, mental incompetents, etc) much less the civilian
>ownership of "personal nuclear devices?"  On a related
>note, where could one obtain these "personal nuclear devices
>anyway?"

>Finally, please expound on your assertion that ascribing
>modern relevance to the 1789 view of "people" is indication
>of living in a "flim flam reality."  Do you apply this 
>thinking only when "people" and "arms" are used together
>(ie. in the 2nd Amendment) or to all usages of the word
>"people."  If the former, why?  If the latter, do you contend
>that the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments are outdated
>threats to the social fabric, etc. [you would not be alone
>in contending this; but I want to see it from you.]

The only note I can add here is to comment that, IF the 2nd Amendment IS an 
outdate threat to the social fabric, it should be repealed, not ignored or 
re-interpreted.  There's no point in putting rights down on paper if you are 
going to ignore them for expedience.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18315 alt.politics.clinton:1073
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 05:25:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.234512.4775@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU 
(David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>Most t.p.g. posters would like to see the criminal element in society 
>disarmed, so how would "random gun checks" be received in US states? I know 
>some would say this infringes some right but if you are a law-abiding citizen
>with a duly registered firearm then surely this hassle would be a small 
>price to pay to disarm criminals. This would also make GUN CONTROL for law 
>abiding citizens unnecessary.
>
>DJ...

NEVER NEVER NEVER!!! Not until HELL FREEZES OVER AND THE COWS COME HOME!
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
states, 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized."

This amendment has beyond question been incorporated into state constitutions
by the 14th Amendment.  What it means is that an officer MAY NOT search
or question a person without probable cause or consent.  Refusing a 
search is NOT probable cause.  The courts have allowed police to set
up roadblocks to check the sobriety of each Nth car, but I believe this is
the only exception.  Luckily, even flaming liberals support this right, as
does the ACLU.  MA is a sucky state, but one notable nicety is that MA is
(I believe) the only state in which refusal to take a breathilyzer test
is NOT grounds for revoking a license.

Making the trains run on time is not so important a goal as to justify
turning a country into a TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE.

Sounds like 1984 to me.  What I fear is that someday, the technology will
exist to monitor thoughts, and then controllists like you will urge 
the government to install them on everyone.  "Disloyalty to Big Brother
is Doubleplusungood.  Report to the disintegration chamber, subject X32123Y1."
And you ask why we want to keep our guns!?!  If someone tries to hook
a transponder up to me, Evan Marshall will be getting some new data points
for next book.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:15:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.162350.28702@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.125643.20077@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>>I'm not really a Libretarian (yet anyway :-), but I feel I must point
>>out that George Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court aren't
>>necessarily pro-RKBA or pro personal rights at all. Look at the
>
>Bush is far from ideal when it comes to gun rights, but Clinton and
>the democrats (Ted "Uzi packing bodyguards" Kennedy) are much, much worse.
>

I don't really draw much of a distinction between losing our RKBA
to further the War on Drugs or to the HCI types who'll do for
that warm fuzzy feeling of false security. Either way, they're lost
for a cause I don't believe in. Actually, perhaps GHW Bush is more despicable
than Clinton since he claims to be our "friend"
until it comes time to play "let's make a deal" with Congress.
Take a good look at what he was trying to "gain" in the latest
Crime Bill that he was willing to snip off part of the RKBA for.
Combine the liberties he was trying to curtail with what he was
willing to "trade" and you should come up with a pretty horrendous
assault on civil rights. No, I do not believe Clinton is a better
answer, but if we all continue to pick the lesser of the two evils,
we'll just continue to support the erosion our Constitutional rights. 
I'll concede that maybe the erosion would be slower with Bush, but 
it would still be there. The best hope we have is a total disarray
in the House due to the check scandal hitting the HCI leadership faction
pretty hard. I'd like to see at least one of the House, Senate, or
Presidency in the hands of a different party (all three in the hands
of the same party is a sure recipe to disaster IMHO). So, to a certain
extent I agree with you, but I really dislike the idea of rewarding 
GHWB for betraying us and for systematically disassembling the Constitution 
in the name of the WOD.
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: The AvtoMat Kalishnakov Model Number 47
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:36:49 GMT

archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>In article <1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:

>>   The NRA seeks to keep the AK-47 assault rifle legal to the public.
>>That is enough for me to know they are misguided. 

>1) The Avtomat Kalishnakov 47 is not "legal to the public."  The Kalishnakov 
>is a Class-III fully automatic assault weapon and has not been legal to sell 
>to private citizens in the United States since 1986, when Ronald Reagan 
>signed the so-call "Sportsmans Protection Act."  You have been lied to by 
>Sarah Brady, HCI, and their syncophant's on the Hill.  

This is all true, but irrelevant, since it is the perception that matters,
not the facts. The Public demands that These Terrible Weapons be banned,
because Criminals and Gangmembers will use them on Innocent Folks.

BTW, under the aforementioned Protections Act (love that name!) 
existing full-auto weapons were grandfathered, which is why yours truly
has a legal MAC-10 with which to provide an unwelcome surprise to the
next burglar...  err, disavantaged person trying to improve his/her lot.

>>Noone needs an
>>automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense. 

Having previously been the victim of an armed assault, and still carrying 
eleven lead pellets from that occasion - to the amusement of X-ray 
operators - I beg to differ. While an automatic weapon may be no more 
effective in disabling assailants than a semi-automatic weapon, it
sure tends to spoil their aim, if not downright discourage them.

Regards,
       H. Biesel s.N.a.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Re: ^42 The Car-Gun Analogy 
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:41:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.135830.3708@convex.com> Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM> writes:

[Texas looking to cease giving driving tests for licenses.]

>    This seems to show that the DPS and Legislature agree that the driver's
>    test is non-value-added. 

>    For you pro-licensing types: Should we expect the rate of traffic
>    fatalities to skyrocket as a result of this lack of testing? Why?

     Be interesting to watch.  Considering the general apptitude necessary
for getting a driver's license, I don't expect we'll se much change.


===========================================================================
|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