HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "Direct" methods of crime control
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:59:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <archer.198@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
> >>The issue of gun control legislation is an attempt at a direct
> >>method of controlling crime

> >This is some new meaning of the word "direct" with which I'm not familiar,
> >since guns do not commit crimes, nor are they necessary to commit them, nor
> >are the vast majority of guns ever used in crimes.  Just what does "direct"
> >mean to you?

> A "direct" method would be one that attacks the tools of crime or the 
> situation that allows it, rather than root causes.
> 
> "Direct" crime control laws include gun control, restricted access to 
> locksmith's tools, requiring increased lighting outside homes, etc.

Are you saying "direct" purposely with quotes to denote sarcasm,
or do you really believe this?
-- 

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: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:13:14 GMT

kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:

>In article <1992Jul23.201637.19089@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>->
>->The operation is being run privately due to a Washington State law
>-                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>-	By *whom*?  Something here stinks to high heaven.

>	It does, however, sound like a wonderfully simple plan to 
>   obtain firearms that are not registered to you.  To what use 
>   those firearms will be put after being "destroyed" is another 
>   matter entirely.  Just to be on the safe side, bring along a 
>   4473 and ask them to fill it out.  If they balk, that's a good 
>   indication that you should try to sell the weapon elsewhere.  
>   After all, gun-grabbers wouldn't oppose firearm registration.  

>	[ No smiley ... unfortunately. ]  

I would be willing to bet any quality pieces turned in don't make it
to the smelter.  I wonder what the reaction would be if someone sat
down near the entrance and offered, say $60.00 for a quality piece.
I bet private buyer would take on an entirely new definition.


--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Gun Banning
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:21:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.185034.13106@sdc.com> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:

>Poppycock.  The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens
>to "keep and bear arms".  

Yes, it was.

>If it had, there would have been wording such as
>"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

How do you know?

Tell me, why does the phrase "the people" mean individual private citizens 
in four other amendments, but suddenly mean "the national guard" in the 
Second?



>The first clause of the amendment is indeed a restrictive clause because
>it spells out the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.  

No, it is not.  It spells out _A_ reason, not the only reason.
If this was truly the case, why does it not read "The right of state 
militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

>The second
>amendment was written to prevent the newly formed national government from
>disarming the state militias.  

No, it was not.  It was written to prevent the national government from 
disarming the citizenry, the the English colonial authorities had attempted 
to do.

>In the past, Congress has, using their
>powers to regulate commerce, enacted legislation restricting firearms
>sales.  None of this legislation was vetoed by the Supreme Court.

Look again.  Congress does NOT have the power to regulate commerce, only 
INTERSTATE commerce.  The Supreme Court does not veto anything, it will 
occasionally overturn laws that are unconsitution.  The Supreme Court has 
not consented to hear a Second Amendment Civil Liberties case in over a 
century.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:09:01 GMT

>A friend of mine awoke one morning to the sound of breaking glass.  He
>grabbed his gun and went downstairs to see what had happened.  He
>encountered a man with a knife and promptly shot him once in the
>chest, dropping him right away (shattered breastbone---he lived).  The
>police came and investigated.  They pronounced it a self-defense
>shooting and didn't hassle my friend.  But they took the gun.  Soon
>thereafter, my friend started receiving threatening phone calls,
>warning him against testifying at the intruder's trial.  If he hadn't
>already had a second gun, he probably would have wanted to buy one.
>Despite the fact that he had already had a gun, he still would have
>had to wait 3 days under Illinois' law.

Here's what would have happened in Massachusetts :

- Homeowner arrested for attempted murder and criminal assault
  (would be charged with first degree murder if the intruder died)

- Gun permit confiscated.  All guns in house taken, even rifles (which 
  may be posessed with the FID card, which unlike the LTC may not be revoked
  except for a statuatorily listed charge)

- Homeonwer offered a no-jail-time plea bargain if (s) pleads guilty to
  a felony

- Intruder offered immunity for the home invasion charge if (s)he agrees
  to testify against homeowner on the more serious "gun related assault
  charge".
 





Rob Boudrie
rboudrie@chpc.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:22:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.125305.2020@tc.fluke.COM>, ness@tc.fluke.COM (Jerry Ness)
writes:

> I just picked up on this waiting period thread so...
> 
> I have never ever needed to buy a gun of any kind RIGHT NOW!!
> 
> A lengthy waiting period to do a background check or just for 
> a 'cooling off' period would certainly not infringe on my rights
> or the rights of anyone I know.

Webster's dictionary:

infringe: ... -infringe on: to encroach on

encroach: to tresspass or intrude (on or upon)

intrude:  to force upon others without being asked or welcomed

If a waiting period intrudes upon my ablity to purchase a firearm today,
then it *is* in violation of my 2nd Amendment right.

> Washington state seems to be missing something in their 'waiting'
> period gun laws. A couple of years ago I decided to purchase a
> new black powder revolver. The revolver I chose is a Ruger Old
> Army .44 cal. There is NO waiting period for a black powder firearm
> in Washington. I bought the revolver, powder, bullets and primers
> and just took them home with me. This does not make any sense.
> Does the law think a revolver of this type can't hurt anybody??

I think this is because black powder firearms are classified
"not a weapon".  Also, I believe anything built prior to 1898
is classified the same.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
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: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for sex and domestic violence
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:00:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.103325.27001@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>This on-going debate over whether an AK-47 is an assault weapon or a
>machine gun and whether we ALL should or should be allowed to have one
>over the mantle is all well and good.  However, when arguing the
>specifics and only the specifics of technical details such as whether a
>weapon can fire 3 rounds per second (all with one trigger pull) or 1.5
>rounds per second (because of the individual trigger pulls) or what the
>intent of the founding fathers was over 200 years ago when they
>dictated their morality into our society, you leave out something -
>perspective.  You are so entrenched in this low-level argument that you
>never argue the real issues.

Not so fast.  When the argument is "that's a machine gun", surely
whether or not it is a machine gun is relevant.  Similarly, a "that's
different than other guns" argument depends on whether or not the
difference actually exists.  (BTW - A boring old six gun has the same
peak rate of fire and reload time drops the effective rate of fire
significantly.)

>Guns have a practical purpose - to kill wild game.

No, guns have a practical purpose - to propel projectiles.  The
targets are chosen by their users.  If we look at usage,
killing/wounding is fairly low on the list, and that's true even if we
look just at counter-people usage.  Then we get into the fact
that counter-people use can be good.

In other words, not only is the summary offered incorrect, the obvious
modifications that make it correct miss crucial details.

>War - the by-product of a lack of communication.

Bzzt - wrong.  War is a conflict resolution procedure.  Few conflicts
come from a lack of communication.

>bullet's wake, it creates a ripple - a shock blast.  The shock blast
>can further tear and destroy skin, muscle tissue, veins, capillaries,
>etc.

Not at small arms bullet velocities.  People aren't melons.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:11:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.160901.16056@chpc.org> rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:
>>A friend of mine awoke one morning to the sound of breaking glass.  He
>>grabbed his gun and went downstairs to see what had happened.  He
>>encountered a man with a knife and promptly shot him once in the
>>chest, dropping him right away (shattered breastbone---he lived).  The
>>police came and investigated.  They pronounced it a self-defense
>>shooting and didn't hassle my friend.  But they took the gun.  Soon
>>thereafter, my friend started receiving threatening phone calls,
>>warning him against testifying at the intruder's trial.  If he hadn't
>>already had a second gun, he probably would have wanted to buy one.
>>Despite the fact that he had already had a gun, he still would have
>>had to wait 3 days under Illinois' law.
>
>Here's what would have happened in Massachusetts :
>
>- Homeowner arrested for attempted murder and criminal assault
>  (would be charged with first degree murder if the intruder died)
Probably right.  Maybe if the perp was a cop killer or a serial killer,
they'd go easier on you.  Good luck.

>- Gun permit confiscated.  All guns in house taken, even rifles (which 
>  may be posessed with the FID card, which unlike the LTC may not be revoked
>  except for a statuatorily listed charge)

Handguns may also be possessed with just the FID card; you just can't
carry them with the FID.

>- Homeonwer offered a no-jail-time plea bargain if (s) pleads guilty to
>  a felony                                              !
I laugh at the DA.  "Plead guilty to THIS I tell him." !!!!>
                                                        | |

>- Intruder offered immunity for the home invasion charge if (s)he agrees
>  to testify against homeowner on the more serious "gun related assault
>  charge".

If you're a good enough shot, the police will only hear one story.
Might help to wear a "Boycott Time-Warner" T-shirt. . . .
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: New Don Kates Piece
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:08:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.115501.5761@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:
>
[something was lost here]
>aned up what I had (some hits) that Larry Cipriani had put
>on the board; many thanks to him for going to all the work to
>type is up as an ASCII file.

Thanks, but someone scanned it in for me ...
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:55:19 GMT

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 -

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

--henry schaffer

P.S.  I'll spare you the sermon on practical politics.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: buy-back
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:30:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.181512.12492@microsoft.com>, alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
|> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
|> 
|> >stedee@auto-trol.com (Steve Deemer) writes:
|> >>Never heard of people -stealing- guns for buyback programs, 
|> 
|> >Yep.  It's a fairly regular occurance.  When a "no questions asked" buy back 
|> >go into effect, burglaries go up, because you have a 100% safe "fence" to   
|> >buy your booty.
|> 
|> I have heard conflicting claims on this point.  Do you have any
|> references for your assertion?

I didn't save the reference, but it was reported on one of the wire services that
400 of the 800 "firearms" turned in in the last NY city buy-back were stolen in
New Jersey right after the buy-back was announced.

Of course, they might have been stolen anyway, but when the government agrees to
be your fence...

And, of course, a big front page media splash was made about "800 turned in", the
later "400 of them stolen recently" didn't even make section G, page 12 of the
Wednesday paper.

"An honest newspaper publishes corrections on the front page.  There are no
honest newspapers." - Dr. Newton, Dean of Journalism, NAU.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
Start your day with a little civil disobedience.  Call BATF at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or
1-800-RUN-GUNS, tell them what you think of gun grabbers and government employees
that encourage people to narc on their neighbors.  Good for the soul.
From: glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: 2nd Ammendment U.S vs Miller (1939)
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:44:08 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

Yup, it's ME again.

Would someone check up on U.S Supreme Court: U.S vs Miller (1939)

My info states that the court's descision on the 2nd ammendment issue was:

"...firearms are protected by the 2nd ammendment *ONLY IF* they have 
 *MILITARY UTILITY*"

To all those waiting in anguish for my replies to "Shoot to Kill vs Stop"
you'll have to hang in there for a while, I'm getting it JUST right.

Gary Glen-Young

THE TOKEN SOUTH AFRICAN!
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 10:28:43 GMT

In article <3696@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>If there were no waiting periods for gun purchases or abortions
>in PA (and there are both), a given woman could wake up
>one morning, decide she wanted a gun, and go buy one.  This
>same woman could not wake up one morning, decide that she
>wanted to have an abortion, and go have one.  Abortions are
>performed in clinics, not stores.  It would be necessary to
>make an appointment first.  No clinic in Pittsburgh performs
>abortions more than three days a week, all the gun shops that
>I am aware of are open for business at least six days a week.
>There is no such thing as an "impulse abortion."

Well, looking in the phone book down here, it looks like you are
mistaken about 'impulse abortions'.  A lot of the ads I see talk about
Saturdays AND EVENINGS (I don't know of a lot of gun stores that will
come in in the evening to sell you a gun) and flexible hours to meet
whatever needs the patient has.  I haven't tried it, but it looks to
me like if I were a woman wanting an abortion, I could wake up one
morning, call a clinic, and go in that evening after work and get it
done. 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:42:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.044351.6180@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes
:
>In article <1992Jul24.024121.23964@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.ac
s.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>>Then please explain why Canada has much lower crime rates than the US?
>>>By your reasoning, all those bad US guns ought to be as available to
>>>the Canadians as they are to the Mexicans.
>>
>>Possible Partial Explanations:
>>
>>1. Canada is not as impoverished as Mexico.  There is
>...
>>
>>2. Canada has less people per square kilometer than
>...
>>
>>3. Various cultural reasons exist.  For one, Canada did
>...
>
>Are you saying that in the case of Canada, gun restrictions are not
>primarily responsible for their low crime rate?
>

Was your question rhetorical, or was it real?  The key word
is PRIMARILY.  The issue of controlling crime is much broader
and relevant than the postings on this net would have you
believe.

The issue of gun control legislation is an attempt at a direct
method of controlling crime, as is the issue of increasing
the number of prison cells and police.  The other side of these
issues usually involve personal freedoms questions.

I am a firm believer that ultimately direct methods are completely
ineffectual without the proper environment to make them work.
For example, would giving someone who was at risk of becoming a
career criminal hope that he/she could get a well paying job
(and the training to get that job) prevent him/her from choosing
a life of crime?  Would the occasional failure of such a program
cost as much as the utilization of more direct methods?

What do Bush and Clinton think about these questions?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:41:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.015907.1251@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes
:
>In article <1992Jul24.002050.16717@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writ
es:
>>|> If gun laws make all the difference, why isn't Mexico
>>|> safer than the U.S.?
>>
>>Because with guns freely circulating north of the border ther is little
>>chance of gun control laws working?
>
>Then please explain why Canada has much lower crime rates than the US?
>By your reasoning, all those bad US guns ought to be as available to
>the Canadians as they are to the Mexicans.
>

Possible Partial Explanations:

1. Canada is not as impoverished as Mexico.  There is
   less of a need to commit crimes violent or otherwise.

2. Canada has less people per square kilometer than
   does Mexico.  People tend to get on one another's
   nerves once in a while when they are in crowded
   places.

3. Various cultural reasons exist.  For one, Canada did
   not violently overthrow its government to achieve
   autonomy.


I don't assert that any of these are correct explanations.
I'm just pointing out that saying, " It didn't work in
country X, therefore it won't work in country Y.", is a rather
silly argument if left unqualified.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: A Proposed FAQ For This Newsgroup...
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:26:34 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 1992 20:32:39 GMT, sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) said:
>>>
>>> alane wrote:
>>> Then we'll have two FAQs, a pro-gun and an anti-gun version.  

>> What you're proposing is kind of like the suggestion that American
>> history books include two chapters on WWII--one based on the US viewpoint,
>> and one based on the "Nazi" interpretation containing quotes from
>> Mein Kampf in which Hitler justifies his "Final Solution."

Talk.politics.guns is not a history book.  It is a DEBATE newsgroup.
Debate is caused by people with opposing viewpoints presenting
evidence, arguing, bickering, and beating each other over the head
with heavy blunt objects.  If you deny your opposition the chance to
speak, there's no debate left.  What's the fun of that?  :-)

Seriously, now: people who are confident they are right can afford
a fair, factual debate -- they know that the facts will support them
in the end.  The only people who feel the need to silence the
opposition are the ones who fear the truth.  If the gun control
advocates are wrong, *prove it* by making your FAQ better than
theirs... not by silencing them.

Let them have their FAQ.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18030 talk.abortion:29084