HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:00:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington

cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:

[...]

> then why do i feel more free than you? why do i have less problems with
>my own security and trust in my govt than you? it could be that singapore
>has a proven track record for peace , growth and all round stability but
>i'm sure you chalk it all up to propaganda and how we MUST actually be poor
>starving , oppressed , ignorant and mislead as compared to you eh? 
>>:-(

PBS had an interesting presentation on Singapore a few days ago.  It seems
some of your own countrymen disagree.  A government that shuts down opposition
papers and permanently bars some opposition politicians from serving in
parliment does seem something of a police state.  In fairness, it did say
that only some liberal, western educated citizens seem to object.  The
average shmoe either doesn't care or thinks it is a good idea.  


--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 07:15:21 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <183141@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
    >Hold on, there, I think them thar tank crews stay in the
    >tank, lotsa armor, and your lil ol' pea shooters operated by
    >them thar lil' ol' pea brains are gonna find out what a REAL
    >"well regulated militia" is all about, bubba.

As usual, the total ignorance of George is on display again.

My father, a captain at the time in the USMC in Korea during all the
fun there, took his tank up to recover a truck of tank ammo that had
been lost. When the drove up to it, they surprised 3 North Koreans
checking it out. A great dilemna ensued. They couldn't shoot the
North Koreans, as they were too close and would set off the ammo,
destroying themselves.

If they backup up, the had to go up a small embankment, and would sight and
line of fire for the .50 BMG. The North Koreans would then swarm on the tank,
doing something like placing a 90MM HE shell in a tread, disabling the tank.

The North Koreans knew this, and just stayed in the truck, watching.

Around a few hours later, as it started to get dark, an infantry squad came
looking for the now lost tank, and the North Koreans scurried off.

Moral of the story, as ANY tanker will tell you, never ever operate a
tank without infantry. Ever. Tanks are the MOST vulnerable things without
infantry.

What drives off infantry best? Oh, people with long range rifles or
mortars do pretty good.

During the budgets cuts under the Carter administration, my brother
was a Dragon specialist in the USMC. The Dragon was, well,
let's just say not the best anti-tank weapon cosnidering what it
faced. The USMC, ever pragmatic, and ever sucking hind-teat on
Navy appropriations, started teaching the old soap & gasoline\
tricks for tank stopping.





-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:38:05 GMT

In article <Bt75t9.B4L@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
>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
>>few that never crop up) regarding the *ownership* of automobiles *or* their
>>use on private property.
>
>Well, I'll stick my neck out and claim that California requires you 
>register all cars, even those on private property.   At least, recent
>laws indicate that it is necessary to register even non-functioning
>vehicles in the state of California.

What's a "non-functioning vehicle"?  If I built my own car on my
own property, and didn't intend to drive it, would the law say I
must register it?
From: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Become a LIFE member
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:50:20 GMT
Reply-To: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Distribution: usa
Organization: m4


 I just did.  The operator said that they have been swamped with
 upgrade requests since these promotions began.  Righteous! Totally
 Righteous!

 ---lee KC6KXI NRA Life     Support the NRA/ILA/PVF---
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Assult Dogs!
Organization: Racal InterLan, Inc., Boxborough, MA (1-800-LAN-TALK)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 17:03:10 GMT



In article <1992Aug6.091552.9630@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
>In article <1992Aug3.155941.5578@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
>(Bill Vojak) writes:
[snip]
>These assault dogs are, of course, the preferred guard dogs of drug
>dealers everywhere.  Police officers, equipped only with German
>Shepherds, are helpless when faced with such exotic dogs, many of them
>imported from other countries.
>Now I have nothing against dogs.  In fact, I used to have one myself.
>However, only sickos, nutcases, and criminals need dogs like that.
>I propose a law against such "assault-style" dogs.
>It should be against the law to import, sell, breed, or possess
>     (a) any German Shepherd, Akita, Rottweiler, Doberman, or Pit Bull,
>     (b) any dog substantially similar to a dog described in part (a),
>     (c) any dog having one or more of the following features: grey,
>         dark grey, or black hair; a short non-fluffy tail; or clipped
>         ears, or
>     (d) any dog capable of wearing a studded collar.
>How's that sound?

    There is already a loud noise of this type going on in the UK.  Rottweilers
are getting a lot bad press in particular.  I think there has been legislation
put foward to ban the things.
   Seems a bit silly.  We keep hearing how safe the UK is because of the gun
bans in effect there.  :-}


-- 
Mark Urbin  Racal-Datacom   Boxborough, MA  These opinions are mine.
"Banning guns makes for great theater but it does nothing to address the 
real problem of criminals and criminal behavior,"
                            -- New Jersey State Assemblyman Frank LoBiondo
From: keith@scorpio.ic.cmc.ca (Keith de Solla)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: shooting the leg
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:06:44 GMT
Organization: Canadian Microelectronics Corporation


I found the following letter to the editor in the August 19 issue
of the Toronto Star.  I am posting here in the hopes that we can
try to dispell such ridiculous viewpoints.  At the bottom I have 
included the address for the newspaper should anyone feel compelled
to respond (hopefully someone with law enforcement credentials).

------------------------------------------------------------------
"
Why, why, why?

  Re Police shot, kill man wielding bat (Aug. 10).  Why did a
trained police officer have to shoot a man with a baseball bat in
the stomach to defend himself?  Why didn't the officer shoot the
man in the foot or leg?  Why didn't the officer try to fight him
with his nightstick?
                        Victor Szabo
                         Willowdale
"
------------------------------------------------------------------

letters can be sent to:
Editor
One Yonge Street
Toronto, ON   Canada
M5E 1E6

You must include full name and address, day & evening phone numbers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Keith P. de Solla        | "I don't enforce the law, I regulate |
| CMC                      |  human behaviour"                    |
| keith@orion.ic.cmc.ca    |    - Commissioner Scali              |

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:30:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.164806.6693@igor.tamri.com>, donb@igor.tamri.com
(Don Baldwin) writes:

> And a waiting period without a background check can't possibly accomplish
> anything.  It is harassment, pure and simple.

Hey, did it occur to anyone that this all the Brady bunch wants?  Think
about it...  They win either way.  If it passed, they can harrass the
shit out of us, if it fails, they can make a media circus out of "The
Big Bad NRA".  They can't lose.  Maybe they hope it fails just for the
3 ring circus.  Propaganda is a powerful tool.

-- 
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: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:15:58 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

>Like the helmet bill, they didn't actually care about "trivia"
>like whether or not their claims were true or not.

Helmet law?  You mean the claims are wrong, and responsible drivers
are safe on motorcycles without a helmet?  Wow...
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
    Where am I?  In the village...  What do you want?  Information...
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:32:57 GMT

In article <xs8marg.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>
>It's also hard to tell which group is up to more no-good: cops or crooks.
							   ^^^^    ^^^^^^

	Gee Dave, y'mean you can actually tell them *apart*??  Uh, care to let
	the rest of us in on the trick?

	-Andy V.
From: lm8637@tnessd.sbc.com (Lou Montgomery (214+464-1049))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Rights, Wrongs, And Needs
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:08:19 GMT
Organization: Southwestern Bell

In article <archer.358@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>Organization
>Sender: usenet@utkux1.utk.edu (USENET News System)
>Distribution: usa
>Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
>Lines: 114
>
>In article <cthong.713477423@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>
>
>>i dunno... haven't you found that it's 
>>only in N . American societies that you read about drive by and people-
>>gone - berserk shootings? 

         Alright. I know this is a semi-private exchange, however this
    goes too far for even mild mannered me to ignore. Haven't YOU
    read about the preferred drive-by method of political execution
    in countries from South America all the way through Syria etc.
    where the citizens don't have the right to eat shit without
    the proper gummit forms filled out in triplicate, much less
    keep and bear arms?


                                       Good poster, but may I
                                       suggest more thought on
                                       your part in respect to
                                       the examples you use?



                                          Later
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: nn
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:07:05 GMT

In article <2sefcxt@Unify.Com>, perry@Unify.Com (Perry Clarke) writes:

> You keep mentioning the "problems we have" without suggesting anyway to
> solve them.  My point was merely that easy availability of anything 
> (be it alcohol or guns) means that people will abuse it and that it

Untrue.  You have fallen victim to a fallacy of logic; "If A then B"
does _NOT_ imply "If B then A".  Your fallacy is "...that easy availability
of anything (be it alcohol or guns) means that people will abuse it...".
Some areas have a large number of firearms per capita (>1/person), yet
have little or no abuse.  Some areas (Washington DC, for example) have
incredibly strict laws (availability is very restricted), yet have a high
rate of abuse.  Based on these counter-examples, it seems that availability
is uncorrelated to abuse (or has an inverse correlation)

> will get into the wrong hands - alcohol is less instantly fatal than
> a pistol.

Is that why the number of _accidental_ auto deaths is significantly higher
than _all_ firearm deaths combined? (including those which are intentional)
Folks killed in drunk driving accidents are just as dead, regardless of how
"instantly fatal" it is.  (and we haven't even started counting other
alcohol related fatalities...)

> As to not having "a gun accident problem", there have been
> at least 3 shootings by children in the Sacramento area since I arrived
> and I don't pay that much attention to the nightly news.

Yes, and it's tragic that these accidents happen.  But I would ask you how
many fatal traffic accidents happened in that same time?  How many fatal
knifings, fatal falls in the bathtub, fatal falls down stairs...  Firearm
accidents tend to make the news because they: 1) are unusual, 2) provide
ammunition for the gun-control advocates, or 3) provide both 1 and 2

> I *know* its too late to do anything about the problems associated with
> freely available guns, I just don't think that the answer is to give a

I guess I don't see "freely available guns" as a problem.  What makes
you define them as such?

> gun to everyone.  I'm just going to keep my head down and try to
> enjoy the pleasanter aspects of America.

Well, just stay out of all those small, peaceful little towns, since
they are very likely to be well armed...  ;-)

-- 
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: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:01:03 GMT

In article <71359@apple.Apple.COM>
earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:

>
>Has anyone else noticed that it's not safe to be in your home lately?  You
>could be in the shower, hear some noise, get your gun, walk into the hall
>and end up dead when the cops shoot a dozen holes in your naked body.
>
     There have been more than a few cases of criminals bursting into
homes and shouting "Police!"  People then automatically do what
they are told, and only once it is too late do they realize what a
terrible mistake they've made and that this is *no* police officer.
     Of course, if you do assume that it is a criminal and defend yourself,
you'll get crucified by the legal system.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:36:45 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:

>In article <4400220@iftccu.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.boeing.com
>(Rick Bressler) writes:

>> Yes he was trained.  The fact that there was one, fatal shot fired sort
>> of shoots holes in your argument, now doesn't it?

[...]

>The fact that he fired one fatal shot to a non-combatant sort of shoots
>holes in the argument that he was *well* trained.

Do you believe that "well trained" means "incapable of error"? It says
he shot the wrong person. That's all, he made a mistake.

>> BTW, the mp5 is a three shot burst assault rifle, not a true machine
>> gun.

>OK, so either Tony's weapon misfired (only one, fatal, shot), or Tony
>couldn't hold on target, as the MP5 fires 3 shot bursts.

or you've misunderstood.

>Since Tony's MP5 (assuming it functioned properly) fired 3 rounds, and only
>one hit target, the other 2 shots must have been wild.  This seems like
>it show a disregard  for the safety of the children in the room.  This
>is why I asked whether a semi-auto carbine might be better.

More misunderstanding on your part. He meant it can be set to fire
bursts of 3, not that that is it's *only* mode. He meant that it could
*not* be set to full auto.

--Jonathan
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:41:21 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:

>In article <Bt6s1F.6tn@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk
>(Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>> 
>> (attributes may be manged)
>> 
>> someone, maybe, syspb@smartstar.com (Paul) writes:
>> >>              ...  Pretty soon, California may
>> >>be like England, where nobody can have a gun.  ...
>> 
>> This, quite simply, is wrong. Only those who are prohibited from owning
>> guns, or those whom a Chief Constable considers cannot be entrusted with
>> a gun, may not have them. Everyone else can have them.

>The problem here in the US is, that a significant portion of the police
>Chiefs here think that no one can be entrusted with a gun.  I find that
>kind of veto power is unacceptable (especially in light of the fact that
>firearm ownership is a RIGHT in the United States).

Quite. But we do have a right of appeal to a Crown Court which can
dismiss the CC's objections - and usually do. In fact, most CC's when
told that an appeal will be made normally issue the certificate.

However, the government has stated that it's unhappy with the abuse of
power being made by CC's and has issued a consultative document in which
it recommends placing the licensing of firearms in the hands of "a
non-departmental public body". That's good news all round.

--JOnathan
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: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:15:29 GMT

In article <cthong.714250623@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Wrong, wrong, wrong.  The "modern" (since 1900) trend has been toward
>>less bullet diameter and weight.  The increase velocity hasn't resulted
>>in greater momentum or KE.  If anything, the trend is towards less
>>lethality, not more.
>
>then why are ammunition diameters getting larger and larger by the decade?

They're not.  In the black-powder days, .50 caliber and bigger was
COMMON.  Now, they're rare.  With that switch, bullet diameters
started dropping.  At first, the common rifles were .45, there was a
brief stop at 8mm, but now they're .30 and the calibers between .22
and .30 are gaining share every year.  It's unlikely that .30 will
ever become as rare as .50 and .45 have, but the shift is still
towards "less".

>and how do you account for less killing power, decreased calibres and modern 
>doo hickeys like .5 semi autos and caseless ammunition?

Yes, some .50 caliber guns still exist.  They were common; they're now
rare.  That's how shifts in trends work.

Interestingly enough, the caseless ammo is a strong example of this
trend.  They're all .22 or smaller in diameter.  They're about as
lethal as the 5.56 NATO guns they're replacing, which were less lethal
than the .308 guns that they replaced.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: gas & soap
Date: 22 Aug 92 07:58:33 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


Actually, I didn't learn it from MacGyver, I learned it from a group
of people with a much better track record: the US Army.

Good point 'bout the show, though.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nominee for SCUMBAG of the year: Rep Frank Wolf (Va 10th Dist)
           (He just signed on a co-sponsor of HR 438)
Grand Prize: One free Bastinado session and a trip to the unemployment
             office by yours truly
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:48:40 GMT

In article <9b!nr1c.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
>Date: 19 Aug 92 06:06:33 GMT
>In article <1992Aug19.011514.883@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>>-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
>>-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
>>-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
>>-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
>
>Which is of course why A. Einstein lent his prestige and name to the
>effort (inideed, initaited by a letter with his signature) to build the
>most destructive weaponry we have yet devised. Yep, save the bunnies,
>but nuke the humans by city-full.
>
Dr. Einstein built the atomic bomb with the hope of ending war.  At the 
time, he expected the bomb to be placed under the control of a multi-
national organization and used as a deterrant.

He was a porr student of human nature, but you cannot question his motives, 
as they are clearly documented.  See any biography.
From: jimc@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Cox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc.
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:04:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas

In article <14138@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.020612.7417@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>|In article <14106@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>|>Hmmm. Did they have rocket launchers and semi-automatic rifles when the
>|>second amendment was passed?  Just wondering?
>|
>|They had rocket launchers and they had "shoot lots of times with out
>|any user action" guns long before the American Revolution.  Semi-auto
>|is a relatively modern idea, say 1870 or so.  (Repeaters, even those
>|that work by pulling the trigger repeatedly, predate semi-autos.)
>
>Really?  What do they hunt with them?
>
>I can really be a pain in the ass sometimes...
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't confuse being a pita with being too lazy to pick up a history book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Jim Cox                            Internet: jimc@bartman.sps.mot.com
Phone: (512) 891-3182          UUCP Address: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!otis!jimc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------