HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: uk09365@nx05.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:37:23 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Aug27012957@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>  
lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> Sharing a continent with a person does not imply that I also share the
> same opinions.  I have never posted anything to this
> newsgroup advocating the banning of ANY sort of gun in my country or
> elsewhere.  My contributions to this newsgroup have been more
> concerned with investigating and refuting claims such as "one
> million crimes are stopped each year with guns",

	You claimed that this number had to include criminals
	defending against other criminals while ignoring the
	fact that the main underlying research (the Hart poll)
	was of registered voters (not likely to include felons
	or other criminals.)

> "gun training caused
> rapes to plummet in Orlando",

	If I remember correctly you said this was not true
	because the rate had dropped 100% (to 0) in a previous
	year.  You neglected that the previous drop was from
	something like 14 to 0 and the one after the gun training
	program was from ~34 to 4.

> "Kennesaw burglaries fell dramatically
> after gun ownership was made compulsory",

	80% drop, what (briefly) was your refutation of this.
	Sorry that I missed / forgot it.

> "medical data shows that a
> gun is no more deadly than a knife", etc etc.

	There is medical data which shows that some knife wounds
	(from large knives and icepicks) are just slightly less
	deadly than the average single handgun wound.  I'd
	concede that as a whole knife wounds are less deadly
	on a one-to-one basis.  If knives were as deadly and
	also effective at longer ranges we might not be
	arguing about the need for guns for protection and
	we could just arm our police with knives.


 
> Just how common do you think with-gun self-defence against
> rape/attempted rape in the US is anyway?  (Data from the victimization
> studies you cite above.)
> 
> a. 1,000 times a day
> b. 100 times a day
> c. 10 times a day
> d. less than once a da

	I understand that rape defense with a gun against
	a stranger is pretty rare.  Maybe 300 times / year.

> 
> > Other studies show that armed citizens use lethal force wrongly about  
1/3
> > as often as "trained" police officers.
> 
> What?????  This implies that 75% of firearm homicides are committed by
> police officers!!  If cops really are killing 7500 innocent people
> each year in the US then I withdraw my suggestion that widespread gun
> availability might be a contributing cause to the high US homicide rate.
> Clearly it is widespread police availability ;-)

	The actual statistic is that police shootings involve
	injury or death to innocent bystanders 9% of the time
	and private-citizen involved defensive shootings involve
	death or injury to innocent bystanders 2% of the time.
	Of course police shootings tend to be in public and
	not - unlike private citizen shootings - at the cop's
	house or shop.

> Tim
> 

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: No Difference Between the Parties?
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<PA142548.267.715443113@utkvm1.utk.edu>
	<1992Sep2.192620.13443@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:47:23 GMT

<In article <1992Sep2.192620.13443@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:

<   I look forward to a substantive answer to my original question. I would be
<   surprised if such a recorded vote can be found in the last 20 years on
<   gun control (showing no difference between the two major parties.)

	The evidence is in your favor. Republicans controlled the
	Senate in the early 1980's. Not only were no anti-gun
	bills passed, McClure-Volkmer (a mixed victory) *was*.

	Anyone have the Senate vote record on McV? What
	about the House?
	
	My failing memory asserts that it was passed standalone,
	or very close to standalone...but I am not at all sure.
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:33:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <1992Aug31.215200.501@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>
>Rog is correct in that by the time the election rolls around, quite
>often gun owners get a free choice between tweedledum and tweedledee.

	You must mean tweedledum and tweedledummer, no?

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:27:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>Terminator/Rifleman who in the past has called me stupid, a communist,
>>and a hoplophobe.  
>       ^^^^^^^^^^  Was 'dat?

"Hoplophobe" is a term coined by Jeff Cooper; it describes a person
who has an unreasoning fear of tools or instruments.

He contends (correctly, IMHO) that some anti-gunners are simply afraid
of guns, and that no logical or rational argument will alter their
opposition to guns.  Like a person who fears flying, and is uncomforted
by the statistics showing how safe aircraft really are, the hoplophobe
will fear guns in spite of any evidence you can present.  The social
and political implications of firearms are irrelevant in the face of a
purely emotional response.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:09:09 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: guns and fascism

In article <viking.714553765@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini) writes:
>>Whereas in the USA, you can buy M16s by reading ads in the newspapers.
>
>	On this point you are terribly misinformed.  Not only can you
>not buy an M16, you can't even find one for sale in the ads of a newspaper.
>Go ahead, look.  No class III dealer advertises in the newspapers.  His
>audience needs to be other class III dealers, not John Q. Public.

Yeah, that's what I did. See my other message to know what I found.

>>We agree that European countries have less criminality than the USA.
>>As a matter of fact, thay also have harscher control on guns...
>
>	Neither of which has anything to do with being able to purchase,
>or not purchase, M16's from the fore sale ads in a newspaper.  If you
>demand stats, the readers of talk.politics.guns have them in abundance.
>Your own contribution is welcome, but note who you're debating against.

Not directly of course, since M16s are very seldom used in gun crimes.
How do you expect gangsters not to be able to buy weapons if regular
citizens are allowed to do so ?

-- 
=---K8>>@@@@@@@@ Marc Milanini @@@@ marcmil@microsoft.com @@@@%%
From: rwojcik@bcsaic.boeing.com (Rick Wojcik)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:19:54 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle

>In article <81248@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>> In fact, it is the courts who decide what rights are yours and what rights have
>> been ceded to government.  You don't have the right to interpret the law, 
>> although you are certainly entitled to your opinion of what it means.  The
>> right of interpretation is one right that clearly is ceded to the judiciary
>> in the Constitution.

>In fact, you DO have the right to interpret the law, if you are on a jury.

Correct.  The courts have the right to interpret the law.  If you disagree with
the court verdict, which may be a jury verdict, then you have no further
recourse.  And, BTW, the Supreme Court can overturn jury rulings.  There are
no juries at that level.
-- 
Rick Wojcik   csnet:  rwojcik@atc.boeing.com	   
              uucp:   uw-beaver!bcsaic!rwojcik 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-disob
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Ammunition Recording (Was: Black Market guns)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<viking.715306690@vincent1.iastate.edu>
	<16854134A0.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:49:05 GMT

<In article <16854134A0.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
<   In article <viking.715306690@vincent1.iastate.edu>
<   viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

<   >	I hate to think the government can know for the next two years that
<   >I have a .30-30, be it rifle or pistol.  How did this one get by?
<   >
<	It sounds like a de-facto registration scheme.  My question is what
<   sort of crime control do they exect to produce with this?  I wasn't aware
<   of any method of tracking a *bullet* back to somebody.

	Hmm. Ballistics tests *sometimes* can connect a bullet
	to a particular firearm, assuming that the barrel hasn't
	changed since the bullet was fired. Headstamps on cartridge
	cases *can* provide some information.....

	But this kind of foolishness was required by the Gun Control
	Act of 1968; in the late 1970's, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
	and Firearms was unable to produce for a Senate
	committee any cases where the ammunition record had 
	actually been used to solve Federal crimes.
	
	The Federal ammo recording requirement was abolished by
	the McClure-Volkmer Act in 1986. Sounds like Iowa has
	taken a giant step backwards....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:20:07 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: guns and surrealism

In article <viking.714540883@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>Sure you have this right. In France too, the right to self-defence is
>>guaranteed. If someone assaults you to kill you, and if you happen to
>>have a weapon, you have the right to defend yourself.
>
>	Sounds good so far.  What's the catch?
>
>>However, the most effective means of protecting yourself does not
>>imply the right to buy weapons freely. If you want to get an arm 
>>for legal purposes, you should not mind a control on this purchase.
>>If you allow honest citizens to buy any weapon they want, you also
>>allow gangsters to do the same.
>
>	What?  I missed something here.  The most effective means of
>protecting yourself is a firearm, according to the stats I've read.
>If you deny "wishing to be prepared to defend myself" as a legal
>purpose, you've just denied the most effective means available.

Reread what I wrote. I do not want weapons to be taken away from
citizens, just controls to be carried out on purchases.

>	I, for one, do mind controls over legal purchases.  If they
>are legal, what's the need for controls?  If all you are after is
>keeping arms from gangsters, you've already lost that battle by
>default, as gangsters don't seem to give a whit about the law.

I have never said that controls on legal purchases would prevent
gangsters from getting weapons. One thing is for sure, remove any
control, and you will find more weapons in their hands. The harscher
the control, the less weapons they will have.

According to your logic, we don't need no stinkin' drivin' licences.
Hey, look, I can drive, I don't need one. What is the point in
controlling me, as long as I don't cause any accident ?

How many more accidents if there was no driving license at all ?

-- 
=---K8>>@@@@@@@@ Marc Milanini @@@@ marcmil@microsoft.com @@@@%%
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:16:30 GMT

In article <viking.715303653@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>	Isn't that all that can be asked of any reasonable person?  That is
>all I was asking of you.

	Well, then I guess we have no argument :)).

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:40:18 GMT

In article <81628@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

>
>Earlier, I made two points in response to the ongoing debate in this newsgroup
>and elsewhere over the RKBA:
>
>   1)  There is no good reason to believe that "well-regulated militia" only
>       referred to a "well-trained militia," and not the more usual sense
>       of a controlled body.  
>
>   2)  The defenders of the so-called "RKBA" as an individual right rest their
>       case on the "original intent" doctrine, which many legal scholars reject
>       on the grounds that the doctrine itself is incompatible with the original
>       intent of the framers.
>
>Despite a direct challenge that people come up with counterevidence to (1), nobody
>has.  

     People have brought up ample evidence.  That you may discount it,
or believe it is invalid, does not mean it does not exist.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|            veal@cs.utk.edu          Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Question about U.S. vs. Miller
Date: 29 Aug 1992 03:07:13 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu
Keywords: None

In article <51171@seismo.CSS.GOV> tcarter@seismo.CSS.GOV (Thomas Carter) writes:
>     Does anyone know what the rational for appealling the (lower
>     court) U.S. vs. Miller verdict. Did the state think that there
>     was something wrong with the way the case was tried, or did they 
>     just not like the outcome.

They didn't like the outcome. The United States Government didn't
raise any questions about the trail, so it's safe to say they weren't
worried about proceedural issues. Miller's defence was quite straight
forward: The law was void, as it violated his Second Amendment rights.
The lower courts agreedi, and this was exactly the issue the Supreme
Court was asked to consider.

						 Frank Crary
						 CU Boulder

(By the way, does anyone know how to get a usenet feed at Boulder?
My account is on pprince, which doesn't seem to connect. Remote 
logins to my old Berkeley account are getting to be a pain...)
 
From: deanp@hplsla.hp.com (Dean Payne)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:56:07 GMT
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

>From: scott@nv10.uswnvg.com (Scott Eckelman)
>Organization: US West NewVector, Inc., Bellevue, WA

>I live in a suburban housing development which has 'covenants', among
>which is one which prohibits guns (even bb guns and slingshots!).  In
>order to live here, you have to sign the covenants.   This seems to be
>getting pretty common, at least in areas with housing associations.
>
>However, it's really unlikely that this could be constitutionally 
>enforced, since I doubt it's possible to waive RTKBA with such an
>agreement.

What is the legal status of the housing association?

I would think that in order to enforce covenants, it would need some
power of local government.  If so, the legislature has already repealed
the firearms portion of the covenant:

   RCW 9.41.290  State preemption.  The state of Washington hereby fully
   occupies the entire field of firearms regulation within the
   boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing,
   possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and
   transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms
   or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components.
   Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only
   those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically
   authorized by state law and are consistent with this chapter.  Such
   local ordinances shall have the same or lesser penalty as provided
   for by state law.  Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent
   with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law
   shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of
   the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of each city,
   town, county, or municipality.

The firearms prohibition would also be unconstitutional:

     The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
     himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
     section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
     corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of
     men. 

     Article I, Section 24, Constitution of the State of Washington.


Dean Payne 
Everett (work) or Seattle (home) WA
deanp@lsid.hp.com
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:06:20 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Sep1160402@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
>Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
>Date: 1 Sep 92 16:04:02
>>>>>> On 26 Aug 92 18:30:18 GMT, PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) said:
>
>> In article <LAMBERT.92Aug27012957@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>Bill Gray said:
>>>(1) You want to ban all guns.
>>>(2) A gun is the most effective defence against rape.
>>>(3) Therefore you require woman to passively acquiesce to rape.
>>>(4) Therefore you are telling them to "lean back and enjoy it".
>>>
>>>I reply:
>>>(1) is false.
>> No it is not.  You have advoacted blanket gun bans on several occasions.
>
>Nonsense.  Please point to an article where I have done this.  I can
>send you a copy of everything I have ever posted if you wish.

Thank you, no.  I have formed my opinion of your stance, and am content to 
let others do the same.


>
>>>There is no evidence for (2).
>> Sure there is.  Check the FBI uniform crime report for 1990 (lastest 
>> available to me).  Of those methods used when assaulted, self-defense with a 
>> firearms is the most effective.
>
>Oh, very well.  I should have written "no good evidence".  Those
>figures you mention are for assaults, not rapes, and we don't know
>whether other differences between the groups "with gun defenders" and
>the rest could have caused the differences in effectiveness,  (That's
>the "guns do not stop crimes, people do" argument, if you haven't
>spotted the parallel.)

There is no parallel.  The evidence clearly indicates that self-defence with 
a firearm is most likely to be successful.

[snip]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:11:56 GMT

In article <DLB.92Aug31112048@fanny.wash.inmet.com>, dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com
(David Barton) writes:

> In article <1992Aug26.233906.11723@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles
> Scripter) writes:
> 
>    Only if they can likewise deprive someone of their life, or liberty
>    by mere passage of a law.  I think "due process" here, means "trial
>    by jury".  Unless, of course, they wish to take our firearms for
>    "public use", and pay the market price for them.
> 
> No.  Due process means whatever the state says is due process.  In
> general, this means a court order, a warrent, or probable cause
> immediately witnessed by the arresting officer.  

This is suspect.  If this is true, then the State, or Feds, can
say "You have blue eyes, and the LAW says all persons with blue
eyes are to report to the disintegration chamber".  I do not
believe this constitutes "due process"; It gives far too much power
to the government.  Do you think the Founding Fathers would allow
*any* government this much power?...  I wonder if they mention
what they meant by "due process"; Anyone have any pointers?

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:06:57 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / grue@csa.bu.edu (Philip Libin) /  7:19 pm  Aug 27, 1992 /

>Let me explain the intricate inner-workings of the gun "black market".
>
>
>1)  Get into a van.
>2)  Drive to Florida
>3)  Buy several score of assorted fire arms
>4)  Load them into said van.
>5)  Drive back to whereever you came from and
>6)  Sell your guns (with a value-added charge).
>
>Congradulations!  You are now a "black marketere".
>
>It seems that laws restricting the _legal_ sale of arms would have
>QUITE an impact on the _illegal_ market.
>
>
>
>Phil Libin

All of them leading right back to you if misused...  Plus, more than 
5 a month is going to set off alarm bells with the BTAF.  Go ahead and 
give it a try if you like, but I suspect Phil hasn't bought ANY firearms
lately, or even knows the procedures/forms that are necessary.

Rick.
From: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: What's wrong with using aliases?
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:58:10 GMT
Reply-To: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Organization: m4


 Come on folks- get real! What possible difference does it make which
 label one chooses as a personal identifier?  Readers who are not experienced
 nor mature enough to ignore the possible bias evoked by an alias should
 seize the learning opportunity presented by, say, The Rifleman.  Are these
 same people biased by Oriental names, or "Jewish" names, or "foreign" names?

 I can't believe that the same people who argue so elegantly for the Rights
 of American citizens pick nits over someone's choice of identifier. Sheesh!

 On another note- I signed up for the NRA-ILA BBS that was advertised in
 the last issue of the American Rifleman. Has anyone else tried this BBS?

--- lee  KC6KXI  NRA Life     Support the NRA/ILA/PVF --
         ^^^^^^
           |
      my FCC alias
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20229 talk.politics.animals:7450
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:42:34 GMT
	<bkny-hf@rpi.edu> <17ehfuINN1mc@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA

In article <17ehfuINN1mc@agate.berkeley.edu>
spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

   I do support the Nature Conservancy, and a few others who spend
   money directly on conservation.  Which is really my point: if
   the public has a desire to support conservation, through the
   spending og private and/or public monies, they will, regardless of 
   attitudes and policies towards hunting.  

Even here, hunters are big contributers.  One of the largest
organizations purchasing land for wildlife and conservation is the
Issac Walton League, which is a nation-wide organization of hunters
and other sportsmen.  Even in Fairfax, VA they have a medium-large
spread set aside for hunting and camping.  Other areas have much
larger areas of land set aside.

I know they don't get the press of the Nature Conservancy.  Of course,
they are evil gun owners, so this is natural :-).

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com