HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:24:49 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) /  6:35 pm  Aug 12, 1992 /

< text reminiscent of stuck caps lock key deleted,  wish you'd waited to
  post until after the service man left though....>

> My views on why people would feel safer in a country where firearms
> are prohibited (private use) are supported by these points.
> - i feel safer in my country because there, i can rely on the police

That's funny.  I live north of Seattle and visit Canada quite a lot.  I
feel less safe there.  Guess those two data points cancel out.  Actually
this is true only half the time.  I don't have security problems the
last half of the year when the purpose of my trips is hunting.  The
first part of the summer I fish and last year, in my favorite area, a
grizzly bear was killing cattle quite near to the camp.  I'd feel lots
safer with a .44 on my hip.  And yes, I know from practical experience
that a .44 will kill a grizzly.  I have a close friend in Alaska that
has twice been forced to use a .44 on a grizzly in self defense.

> (who incidentally are not goon-squad commies as you might think..heh)
> to keep the area safe. in the event of any incident , i know i can

There is one cop for several hundred square miles in the interior.  It
can take HOURS for him to respond.

> rely on my neighbours to look out for me as i look out for them.
> the cops meanwhile are only a 20 second phone call away.

Not everyone in your country lives in Vancouver.  Besides, if you think
firearms are ineffective for self defense, why do you suppose police
officers carry them?  Are you conditioned by your culture to expect that
cops have some sort of 'divine right' to self protection (as
representatives of the royal ruling class?) that you do not?

Rick.
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 20:05:21 GMT

In article <cthong.714250940@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>andy wrote:
>>Shooting someone in the arm/leg is a lousy way to stop them, unless
>>you're using something that pretty much guarantees amputation, which
>>is way beyond "modern" small arms.  Such amputation is likely to
>>result in eventual death, more so than less extreme measures like
>>shooting them in a "stop zone" with a practical gun.
>
>>While shooting someone in the arm/leg is a lousy way to stop them,
>>they're still at some risk of death.  Anti-self-defense folk sure
>>are blood thirsty.  They want to kill attackers, they just don't
>>want to stop them.
>
> let me get this straight - stop them but don't kill them.

The goal is to stop them, whether or not you kill them.

>don't shoot them in the arms or the legs.

No, don't shoot them in the arms or legs.  It doesn't stop them
soon enough even though it may eventually kill them.

>boy . you sure must be a REAL good shot if you can think of AND hit 
>another 'disabling' area of the body eh?

The torso is a much larger target than the arms and legs.  The bigger
the target, the easier the shot.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 22:43:57 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park


Clinton's no Dan Quayle-- one version of the Brady Bill did specify a
5 BUSINESS day waiting period.  This just happens to always be as long
or longer than a 7 calendar day waiting period.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:59:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug21.164806.6693@igor.tamri.com>, donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
> It's not that it doesn't start ticking.  Here's what it says:
> 
>   "(S)(1) It shall be unlawful for an licensed importer, licensed
>   manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver,or transfer a handgun to
>   an individual who is not licensed under section 923, unless --
>        :
>         "(ii)(I) the transferor has received written verification that
>             the chief law enforcement officer has received the statement, 7
>             days have elapsed from the date the transferee furnished the
>             statement, and the transferor has not received information from
>             the chief law enforcement officer that receipt or possession of
>             the handgun by the transferee would be in violation of Federal,
>             State, or local law; or

Well, I've posted mine and you've posted yours, and they're CLEARLY
different.  What's the date on yours, and how can I get a copy?  Mine
says:

May 9 (legislative day, April 25) 1991
Received

May 15 (legislative day, April 25) 1991
Read the first time

Passed the House of Representative May 8, 1991.

Attest:     DONNALD K. ANDERSON,
                                Clerk.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
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 22:27:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.184100.29806@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:
>
>From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
>(description of horrifying SWAT terrorism deleted, then adds:)
>I don't get the connection...if the woman had been armed would this
>confrontation end otherwise? Even if she held off the cops, they'd
>get the battering ram and kill her and her kids too. I've said this a
>dozen times - gun ownership does not stop police/govt abuse of its
>citizens.

If the SWAT team members knew they would probably be killed if they
invaded a house, would they be as ready to do it?  Disarming the 
people will make SWAT teams all the more ready to violate people's
civil rights.

Think about this.  If that lady the SWAT team rubbed out had taken a
few members of team along with her, she'd be no "deader" than she
already is. . . .


  ------------------------------------------------------------------


 " . . . then they killed my wife, and I stopped believing in the system,
   and began to believe in _justice_." 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 20:06:57 GMT

In article <16848367.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
(David Veal) writes:
>     Suspects or criminals are not "combatants" unless they present
>an immediate threat.  It absurd to suggest that the police should
>patrol in full-body kevlar armor and pull sub-machineguns on shop-
>lifters.
>     We expect mistakes to happen.  Police are human.  That is why
>we both expect mistakes from good people and try and limit the power
>available for abuse from bad people.
>     But when somebody screws up and somebody *dies* it is not enough
>to say, "Well, mistakes happen."

I find myself in agreement with this.

I attended traffic school a few years ago and they made a point of
telling us how we should keep our hands on the wheel, etc, if the
police pull us over.  I reject the idea that I must prove to an officer
that I am not a violent criminal:  my record demonstrates that I'm not
violent, fer god's sake!

    don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dsims@leo.ece.uc.edu (David Lyle Sims)
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:20:22 GMT

A human named PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) wrote:
>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?
>
>     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.

Why doesn't the police department use an authentication scheme?  Before
they burst into your home, you and the police whip out your computers and
run an authentication protocol (using public-key encryption, etc) to
determine that it really is the police.          :^)
-- 
D. Sims
dsims@thor.ece.uc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:22:31 GMT

In article <Bt6s1F.6tn@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!willis.cis.uab.edu!nntp.msstate.edu!olivea!uunet!mcsun!uknet!newcastle.ac.uk!peepy!q1ygq
>From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Gun control in California
>Message-ID: <Bt6s1F.6tn@newcastle.ac.uk>
>Date: 18 Aug 92 15:51:15 GMT
>Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU
>Lines: 12
>Nntp-Posting-Host: peepy
>
>(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.

     "Those prohibited from owning guns," and "those whom a Chief Constable
considers cannot be entrusted with a gun," pretty much some it up.
 
     And if the Chief Constable decides *nobody* gets to own a gun?  One
guy makes that decision and *poof* nobody gets to own a gun.

>--Jonathan

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: shooting the leg
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:37:02 GMT

keith@scorpio.ic.cmc.ca (Keith de Solla) writes:

>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....

>  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?

In similar vein, there was a recent case in Queensland where a
prisoner was attempting to escape, using a dummy gun, and was shot
and killed by a guard while attempting to hijack a bus.  One 
bystander interviewed for the press made an asinine comment along
the lines of, "I don't understand why they had to kill him, why they
couldn't fire a warning shot in the air first."  What he thought
happened to bullets fired into the air I know not.

There has also been a more recent case where a policeman was forced 
to defend himself against a knife attack and shot and killed his
attacker.  As might be expected, this has prompted a lot of armchair
criticism from people who don't seem to understand that an assault
with a lethal weapon prompts a lethal response.  You're not less
dead if you're stabbed or beaten to death than if you're shot dead.

Geoff Miller (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)  |   Don't steal.  The government
Computer Centre                     |   hates competition.
Australian Defence Force Academy    |   (via Jeff Cooper)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Evil, Assault Chewing Gum  (was Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... 
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.chewing-gum
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: A Glorified, Overheated Swamp
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 04:12:55 GMT

In article <cthong.713767290@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
- >Ah.  You're from the place which has a leadership that's so
- >anal-retentive, it has outlawed CHEWING GUM.
- 
- sigh.... once again my insulting young friend....get your damn facts
- straight - the act of chewing gum is not illegal in s'pore.
- it's the importing of the gum to SELL that is.

	All chewing gum or only the "assault chicle" 
   which has no legitimate sporting purpose?  

	Folks, let's face it, anyone who defends a ban on 
   the import of chewing gum is not likely to be swayed by 
   logical discourse wrt firearms.  Firearms, being hard,
   metal objects, are intrinsically more dangerous than a 
   stick of Juicy Fruit - which would you rather drop on 
   your foot?  Just wait until the Treasury Dept's Bureau    
   of Alcohol, Tobacco and Chewing Gum hears how well the  
   laws against evil chicle smugglers works in Singapore.   :-) 


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "No se caza para matar, sino, al reves,                
 kossack@rice.edu  |   se mata para haber cazado."               
  +1 713 240 2073  |                               -- Ortega 
  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19515 talk.politics.animals:7221
Date: Tuesday, 18 Aug 1992 12:49:35 EDT
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Distribution: usa
 <16p8ikINNpv9@agate.berkeley.edu>

In article <16p8ikINNpv9@agate.berkeley.edu>, spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve
Pope) says:
>
>
>It is no crime to call a company and complain about their products
>products on a product-complaint line.  Nor is it any crime to
>encourage others to do so.  Nor is it any crime for like-minded
>individuals to share information about whose products are
>harmful, and how to give feedback to those responsible.
>
>Many companies do not mind having this sort of feedback.
>
>Note that the "New Gun Week" article talks first about some
>clearly illegal actions (arson), then sort of blends into a
>discussion of this 800 number business with an attempt
>to lull the reader into thinking that this, too, is illegal.
>Which of course it isn't.  Larry Ciprani at att.com seemed not
>to notice this fairly obvious bit of journalistic deception,
>so I thought I'd point it out.
>
>Steve

Unless, of course, it is the INTENT of the caller in making the call(s)
and in "sharing" the information mentioned with others to cause
deliberate, premeditated harm instead of provide "customer feedback".
Then such activities clearly *are* illegal and subject to both civil and
criminal sanctions.

Mr. Pope at berkeley.edu "seemed not
to notice this fairly obvious bit of journalistic deception,
so I thought I'd point it out."

WKG
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:42:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside


In article <26720@life.ai.mit.edu> benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud) writes:

#Well, the thing is you see, guns will -never- help you against a
#government. The day there is a coup d'etat in the US (which will have
#the support of the army, because it needs it),

That you cannot know.  Many time the armed forces fall in on the side
of the people.  Our armed services have never been used to suppress our
own people.  There are exceptions but they are far from the rule.
I believe that if the people of this country wanted to take down the
government the armed forces would follow.

#n ** you will look rather silly waving you little colt at a BIG TANK !!**

Stranger things have happened when people have courage.  Have you seen any
of the photo of people and tanks that have come out of China and Russia?
Some times the people driving the tanks do not have the will to use them
against brave people.  Some people are willing to die rather than submit
to an undemocratic government.

Consider the number of people in the military and the number of people with
guns.  Say 30 or 40 million armed citizens could take over this country in
a few days.  Look at the LA riots and how long that took to get under control
and remember most of the people involved were unarmed and their numbers were
only in the thousands.

#The US has the biggest (and best of course...) military in the world.
#A few (even a few milion) hunting rifles will do NOTHING against it.

Agian would the miltiary turn on their own people?  Unless it was a local
riot or an isolated action by political far right or far left then I say
they will not have the will.  Look at Russia last year.  Their army did
not have the will to stand up to a united people.

#Now, guns save no one. Look at Europe. If guns save people in the US,
#it's ONLY BECAUSE THE SAME GUNS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO CRIMINALS.

In WWII guns save Europe from the Nazis.  I will not give up my rights
to being armed I would rather see swift and sure justice to those who
criminals that kill.  

#A gun, like tobacco, is a government approved good which, when used as
#directed, causes death.

It's thinking like your statement above that motivated me to become one of
the 1500 new members a day of the NRA since the LA riots.  I have never owned
a gun in my life but I soon will.

After reading all the anti-gun and gun-control arguments I now understand the
meaning of a bumper sticker I saw years ago.  "You can have my gun when you
take it from my cold dead hand."

#Benjamin.

starbuck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 03:08:35 GMT

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>In other words, the police have to respond, at least to acknowledge that
>they've received the paperwork, before you can get your handgun.  This
>gives them de facto veto power because all they have to do is not
>acknowledge receiving the application.  THAT is unacceptable.

	Just a wild idea, but what are the laws concerning return-reciept
mail?  I don't know that refusing to take delivery of the mail would be
any sort of crime, but what about taking it and refusing to sign the
reciept?

	Better yet, I imagine a police chief would get royally torqued
if the dealer hand-delivered the paperwork, along with a nightly news
team and a few cameras in tow.  I still don't want it to happen, but
perhaps there are rather subversive measures that can be done to ensure
the spirit of the law (what _should_ happen) is obeyed and the loopholes
not wormed through?

	Ideas?

<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. >
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Saturday, 22 Aug 1992 09:26:13 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: CLEVELAND KIDS

   The media is not interested in the truth.
   See our posting of 08/19/92 "Problems !".
   The media is interested in supporting those who would use violence to
   overthrow the Constitutional government of the United States.
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2  (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:12:34 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) /  4:03 pm  Aug 20, 1992 /
In article <4400220@iftccu.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.boeing.com
(Rick Bressler) writes:

>> Yes, my idea is that you are an armchair critic, and an ignorant one at
>> that.
>
>Oh boy, guys!  My very own flame war!  Temper, temper Rick.  I was asking
>for facts, and this wasn't intended as a flame.

Actually, it seemed to me like you were ignoring the facts.  Then 
stuff started to form a pattern.  For some reason it looks like my 
most recent post called 'part 3' hasn't gotten there yet.  (Of course
by the time you read this it will have.)  I think lots of this stuff
is due to propagation delays.  I'm not going to respond to anything 
that doesn't reference 'part 3' so that I can make sure we are all 
on the same subject and using the same information.  Ok?

Flame war declined.  Read my 'part 3' post when it comes around, 
and if you still think you have any valid points, we'll take it up 
from there.  

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 13:50:11 GMT


From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
(responding to my post indicating that armed response to SWAT attack would be
useless)

>If the SWAT team members knew they would probably be killed if they
>invaded a house, would they be as ready to do it?  Disarming the
>people will make SWAT teams all the more ready to violate people's
>civil rights.

Having worked on the PD and knowing our SWAT team - they are VERY
READY for violence - and of the 10-15 guys I know, they are VERY
READY to hurt anyone - if you sneeze wrong - you're dead.
Not to mention the few 'hot dogs' who JUST LOVE when someone
SUGGESTS resistence...they're itching to pull that trigger.

They have protective gear, armed with tear gas, MPK5s, Helmets, boots...
they're adrenilin high...yeah, you pull a gun and make a stand if you'd
like, but my money's on the SWAT team.

>Think about this.  If that lady the SWAT team rubbed out had taken a
>few members of team along with her, she'd be no "deader" than she
>already is. . . .

Maybe if she had claymores already set up....and if people did this,
they would be even more violent going in.

This is the wrong time to fight - you're outgunned and the victim of
a surprised attack - it's way to late to make 'statements' of
protest.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns