HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Gun Control generally (from Knee Jerks
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:41:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.154609.19823@aston.ac.uk>, priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk (Jason Price) writes:
|> In article 1889@tnc.UUCP, m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
|> >
|> >Concerning 'Rational' Gun Control in England:
|> >
|> >Oh yes, Merrie Olde England, the country that had it's prime minister
|> >beg us for weapons when the Germans were threatening to do to them
|> >what they had already done to France.
|> >
|> >Seems to me that the lesson failed to take hold yet again.
|> >
|> >Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  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
|> >----------------------------------------------------------------
|> >"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
|> >individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
|> >subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
|> >in their purpose."
|> >        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
|> >-- 
|> >The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
|> >703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
|> 
|> 
|> Do you have a serious point to make, or would you just like to hurl abuse??
|> I don't think a discussion on the war record of the US is particularly constructive
|> here do you??
|> 
|> Jason.
|> 
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|> priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk	| "I have something to say...
|> Aston University,	|  it's better to burn out than to fade away"
|> Birmingham, U.K.	|  	 - Kurgen, (Highlander)
|> 

I think his point was serious Jason. I admit it was phrase in a
provacative way but England has had problems with this in the past.

When owning and using a gun is such a bother many people are not
willing to go through the hassles. Therefor they are not competent
with a gun and of little use in a national crisis such as a war.

Does anyone have a referrence to that article (I think in AR) about
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's problem with this very thing?

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Important Dates in the Gun Banning Movement
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 18:53:06 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <8110300@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post) writes:
[ ... ]
>What I need are dates when certain well-known waiting periods went into
>effect.  California would be a good example. 
          ^^^^^^^^^^
1953

My reference:
article <31758@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, by loving@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Loving).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:48:30 GMT

>>>>> On 17 Dec 92 20:32:55 GMT, ljb@parkcity.dr.att.com (BLO54620-BonhamLJ(DR2194)240) said:

> The point I wish to make is that what one will not find when
> perusing the news papers are any stories about crimes being foiled
> by gun owning victims, despite the fact that the NIJ (Nat'l
> Institute of Justice) estimates that between 600,000-900,000 crimes
> are prevented or stopped each year in the U.S. by lawfully armed
> citizens.  This out numbers by more than 3 to 1 the number of crimes
> committed anually, with or with out firearms.  In other words, don't
> believe everything in the papers.

And don't believe everything you read in this newsgroup.  According to
the National Crime Survey, there are 80,000 crimes each year where
guns are used in self-defence (not always successfully), and there are
800,000 crimes committed with guns each year in the US.  I'm not sure
that the ratio (used against criminals)/(used by criminals) makes much
sense, but it seems to run about 10 to 1 against the good guys.

Sources?  Why Kleck's Social Problems 35:1 paper, of course.
Strangely Kleck gives a larger estimate based on a smaller, less
accurate poll greater emphasis :-)

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Simon's Rock College shooting info
Originator: hes@sparcler.cc.ncsu.edu
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:51:55 GMT

  The Dec. 28, 1992 issue of the New York Times (National Edition)
has a front page story, "Questions Outweigh Answers in Shooting
Spree at College" which is continued on page A12 and which in total
amounts to nearly a complete page of the newspaper.  It mainly
deals with Wayne Lo, his background, his possible motivation and
the events of the day.  It doesn't emphasize anything about
firearms.

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.men
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Vigilantes
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<DRW.92Nov29203351@euclid.mit.edu>
	<1992Nov29.235623.12219@newstand.syr.edu> <Bz4pq0.Eq2@acsu.buffalo.edu>
	<1992Dec12.194841.8580@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
	<1992Dec15.221623.9319@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
	<1992Dec16.172616.23833@mtu.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:16:51 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:26:16 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
> (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

>> I happen to have some data - a secondary source quoting Interpol,
>> International Crime Statistics, vols 1983-84 - apparently a 1984 survey.
>> 
>> This has crime rates of selected countries, and shows the US as the
>                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> leader in actual homicides of all listed at 7.9 per 100,000.  [Most
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Do you mean actual homicides, or normalized per 100,000?  Wrong on both
> counts.  (see India for actual numbers, see others for highest per capita).
> from rkba.016 (1984 data):

>                  H O M I C I D E
>                                   PER         ABSOLUTE
> RANK  COUNTRY                     100,000     NUMBERS
> ====  ==========================  =======     ========
> **>11   United States                 9.60      18,155
>  27   West Germany                  4.47       2,771

These numbers are ALSO from Interpol data (but a different year) and
were computed by adding attempts to homicides.  Except that the US
figure is just homicides, since that data for attempts in the US was
not available.  The WHO Statistical Yearbook gives a homicide rate of
1.2 for West Germany.  This information is compiled from the cause of
death listed on the death certificate.

>> countries include attempted homicides in their data - the interpol
>> data separates it out into attempts and actual where possible.]  Data
>> for 'attempts' in the US was not available from my source.
>> 
>> Egypt has 1.0 homicides per 100K and 1.5 attempts.  Mexico isn't listed.

> Egypt has 3.45 homicides per 100K.

WHO gives 0.5 homicides per 100k.

>> My secondary source doesn't have all the countries unfortunately, but
>> there isn't any country listed that has a higher homicide rate.

> Unfortunately, my source doesn't have all that you've listed...  Maybe
> the two tables need to be merged.

I looked through the WHO statistical year book lokking for places with
a higher homicide rate than the US.  Of the 70 odd places listed only
Colombia (33.2), Ecuador (20.0), Mexico (19.45), El Salvador (35.8)
Puerto Rico (14.55) and the Bahamas (10.5) had higher homicide rates
than the US (8.8)

Tim
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:46:02 GMT

In article <9301021313.22@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <1992Dec31.194027.1838@cbnewse.cb.att.com> random@cbnewse.cb.att.com(David L. Pope) writes:
>>[Text regarding carry permits deleted.]
>>
>>>>Then why are we threatening other people with jail?
>>
>>> The police would like to know who has guns.
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>And it is our duty to restrict that knowledge.
>
>Why is that?

       The same reason we don't require the police be informed for
every object that could be used as a deadly weapon.  Because it's
none of their business unless I use that object in a crime.  As
agents of the government, the police should be watched closely.  When
they get to keep records of everything that *might* develop into a crime,
they might start thinking it's their job to jump in whenever somebody
has the capability to commit a crime, rather than when they actually do.
       In fact, it's already happened.  My favority being the quote
from a Florida police officer on the war on drugs and civil forfeiture.
He said, "When you take away someone's money, you take away their
ability to purchase narcotics"
       As someone who A) has money, and B) has never purchased narcotics
I find this very, very scary.  What, then, if they decide that can
prevent shootings by confiscating guns, beating by confiscating baseball
bats, and child abuse by confiscating children?
       And where exactly did good intentions turn into a police state?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
From: elric@ap.cl.msu.edu (Tom Wright)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Traveling with a gun
Date: 1 Jan 1993 05:36:34 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: ap.cl.msu.edu

In article <1992Dec29.183250.25517@samba.oit.unc.edu> rdrob@med.unc.edu (Ricky Roberson) writes:
>Hi folks!  Just ran across this group, and hope I can find some help here.
>Can anyone tell me the *current* laws concerning carrying a weapon in a
>vehicle.  Does it vary from state to state?  I know it can't be concealed,
>but does it have to be registered?  Could you borrow your friend's gun and
>carry it on the seat next to you?  I'm going on a trip soon, and plan on
>carrying a handgun for personal protection.  I'll be traveling through
>several states.  
>
>Any help would be appreciated.

Well, here's how it is in Michigan:

If you have a Michigan concealed weapons permit (next to impossible
to get) you can keep it anywhere in the car.
Without one:
(Quoting from Michigan State Police "Basic Pistol Safety Pamphlet")

  "Without a Comcealed Pistols Licence you are limited to transporting a pistol
   unloaded, in a wrapper or container, in the trunk of a vehicle only in the
   following circumstances:
   
   1. en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area, provided you are
      in posession of a valid Michigan hunting license or membership in a 
      organization that has target shooting range facilities.

   2. trasporting from the place of purchase, to your home, or place of 
      business, or place of repair.

   3. in moving goods from one place of abode or business to another place
      of abode or business.

   4. to your local police agency, within 10 days of purchase, to obtain a
      Safety Inspection Certificate (registration).

If the vehicle doesn't have a trunk, the pistol may be trasported in the
passenger compartment for the above purposes (1 thru 4), provided it is
unloaded, in a wrapper or container, and is not readily accessible to the 
occupants of the vehicle."

Whew, quite a bit of typing.  Michigan also considers 'loaning' a pistol
illegal.  Sounds like you had better stay out of Michigan on your trip :).
Besides the loan of the gun from your friend, you wouldn't fall into
the above 4 legitimate reasons for having one in your car.  Even if you 
did fall into one of the four, you have to have it unaccessible to people
in the car, so its useless for self defense.

Boy, Michigan is pretty anal about handguns, isn't it?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Re: Kleck, Social Problems
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 02:44:51 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

Another "fact" that would be nice to document is this one:

 I have read somewhere that citizens kill up to 10 times as many felons in
the act of a felony as due police officers. Anyone know where I can find out
if this is accurate? 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool)
Subject: Re: Here's the problem
Reply-To: mikepb@lupus.dell.com
Organization: Dell UNIX Support
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:20:12 GMT

In article <PA146008.574.725049025@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>> 
>>         Things were considerably different then.  It really would not have 
>> occured to them that the federal government would wage an all out war 
>> against drugs within state borders, or that the states would let them get 
>> away with it.  (The states held most of the power at the time.)

The states held a lot of power until the Civil War.  People like to claim
it was over Slavery.  Horse Hockey.  The Northern States wanted to mandate
against slavery and the Southern States, rightfully I might add, said, NO!
that power is not granted to the federal government by the Constitution so
it remains a State's right to regulate.  The Southern States finally
decided that if being a member of the United States meant bending over for
the Federal Government, they didn't want to be a member, and they didn't
want US forces "on their soil."  After the Civil War, the Federal
Government had lots of power and that power grows daily!

>>         In my experiance, this isn't common at all.  While the same 
>> arguments seem to apply to drug legalization as to the RKBA, a great many 
>> people support one, but not the other.  Those that support both, 
>> unfortunately, appear to be in the minority.  (And before a lot of people 
>> respond to this post with "I'm a data point," posts, consider that Usenet 
>> isn't by any stretch of the imagination representative of the general 
>> population.)

I happen to support both.  I do not think the Federal Govt has any business
regulating that kind of thing.  There isn't even a Federal charge for
murder.  It is a State charge, because way back when, the federal
government KNEW it didn't have the authority for that kind of law.

------------------------------++----------------------------------------------|
| #include "std/disclaimer.h" || MICHAEL P. BRININSTOOL mikepb@lupus.dell.com |
|-----------------------------++--------++------------------------------------|
| IF LIBERALS INTERPRETED THE 2ND       || "An armed society is a polite      |
| AMENDMENT, THE WAY THEY DO THE FIRST, ||  society!"  -- Heinlein            |
| CARRYING A GUN WOULD BE MANDATORY!    ||                                    |
|---------------------------------------++-------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: Time-Warner
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:52:41 GMT

In article <lk48gfINN5it@news.bbn.com> gonzalez@BBN.COM (Jim Gonzalez) writes:
>I don't think Time-Warner has changed its tune, as some here have suggested.
>It's been reported on the internet mailing last that the latest Batman, 
>produced by Time-Warner's DC comics, has a story including Virginia gun
>runners and "assault weapons".  It was today reported that the Virginia 
>governor is distributing it to legislators, in support of his latest 
>gun control proposals.
>

Somehow, a "Batman" comic book sounds about the right
speed for anti-RKBA politicos to distribute as
"evidence".
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (William E. Sadler)
Subject: Re: Downside to FFL?
Organization: Georgia State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:24:39 GMT

Myron,

I've checked my redbook, I cannot find the most recent one, but in the 88-89
version it says on p. 7, para 923.1.c:

...
Nothing in this chapter chall be construed to prohibit a licensed
manufacturer, importer, or dealer from maintaining and disposing of a personal
collection of firearms, subject only to such restrictions as apply in this 
chapter to dispositions by a person other than a licensed manufacturer,
importer, or dealer.  <<-- this reads to me that you don't have to do anything
a non-dealer has to do w/ your personal collection.  There are some
restrictions, as the paragraph continues -->>
If any firearm is so disposed of by a licensee within one year after its
transfer from business inventory into such licensee's personal collection or
if such disposition or any other acquisition is made for the purpose of 
willfully evading the restrictions placed upon licensees by this chapter,
then such firearms shall be deemed part of such licensee's business
inventory, <<-- this seems to mean don't try to avoid 4473's by putting guns
into your personal collection then selling them to someone - the unclear part
of this regulation follows -->>
except that any [license cateogries] who has maintained a firearm as a part of
a personal collection for one year and who sells or otherwise disposes of
such firearm shall record the description ... in a bound volume...

So, what does the last sentence mean?  Lets see if I can summarize.  If you are
a FFL, you can have your own collection.  Don't mess w/ us by trying to 
sell guns to yourself to avoide the paper trace.  We consider transfer from
inventory to you to another person within 1 year a scam.  Lastly, even if you
own it for more than 1 year, keep a record anyway.

Any other interpretations?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 William E. Sadler          |       Internet : matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
 Ga State University        |                : acmwes@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
 M.S. Computer Science      |   Internet/CI$ : 71005.1241@compuserve.com
                            |            CI$ : 71005,1241
 (404) 413-1957             | Public Keys    : by request or
                            | RIPEM, PGP 2.0 : finger matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Control generally (from Knee Jerks
Date: 27 Dec 92 17:36:00 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <1992Dec22.154609.19823@aston.ac.uk> priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk writes:
>
>I don't think a discussion on the war record of the US is particularly constructive
>here do you??

We've won 7, tied 1, and lost 2. It's not a perfect record, but it's
pretty good. Care to compare?

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Traveling with a gun
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:45:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division

In article <csjohn.725729652@knuth.mtsu.edu>, csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (J Wallace) writes:
|> In <1992Dec29.183250.25517@samba.oit.unc.edu> rdrob@med.unc.edu (Ricky Roberson) writes:

|> >Can anyone tell me the *current* laws concerning carrying a weapon in a
|> >vehicle.  Does it vary from state to state?  I know it can't be concealed,
|> >but does it have to be registered?  Could you borrow your friend's gun and
|> >carry it on the seat next to you?  I'm going on a trip soon, and plan on
|> >carrying a handgun for personal protection.  I'll be traveling through
|> >several states.  

|> Call the BATF & ask them to send you a redbook.

Good advice.  Also, call the NRA at (202)828-6339, and they will mail you
summaries of state firearms laws for the states you are passing through.

This service is available to both NRA and non-NRA members.

Be aware that some jurisdictions violate the law, and will confiscate any
firearms they find, and make it an extreme hassle (or impossible) for you to get
them back.  They may even attempt to charge you with a felony crime, and "allow"
you to plea bargain to a misdemeanor.

Incidently, if you're not an NRA member, I sell $25 first year memberships with a
$10 rebate, at a (small) loss to myself.  Email hays@ssd.intel.com for details.

If you own a gun, spend the cost of a box of shells, and join the NRA.  You won't
be sorry.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
From: lilianstrom@NAGY.FNAL.GOV (If its too loud,  You're too old)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Chicago
Date: 24 Dec 92 14:05:43 GMT
Reply-To: lilianstrom@fndcd.fnal.gov
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division, Special Projects Group
NNTP-Posting-Host: nagy.fnal.gov

On December 23rd, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley announced that he is going to
present a new tax plan to the Chicago City Council.  What does that have to
do with t.p.g. you ask?  Well the tax is on ammunition and long guns
(handguns have been illegal in Chicago for over 10 years) and put the money
collected in a 'gun victims rehab fund'.  Other neat plans by the mayor
include identifying the actual owners of the firearms manufacturer and
psuhing them to slow handgun production.  This goes to the Chicago city
council next month and Daley wants to take it nationwide. Happy Holidays
all.

			al

Al Lilianstrom
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Batavia, Illinois
lilianstrom@fndcd.fnal.gov

My opinion.  Not the DOE's, URA's, or anyone else at Fermilab
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Traveling with a gun
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:22:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

In article <csjohn.725729652@knuth.mtsu.edu> csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (J Wallace) writes:
>In <1992Dec29.183250.25517@samba.oit.unc.edu> rdrob@med.unc.edu (Ricky Roberson) writes:
>
>>Hi folks!  Just ran across this group, and hope I can find some help here.
>>Can anyone tell me the *current* laws concerning carrying a weapon in a
>>vehicle.  Does it vary from state to state?  I know it can't be concealed,
>>but does it have to be registered?  Could you borrow your friend's gun and
>>carry it on the seat next to you?  I'm going on a trip soon, and plan on
>>carrying a handgun for personal protection.  I'll be traveling through
>>several states.  
>
>>Any help would be appreciated.
>
>I believe it is ok, as long as your destinition state/city doesn't
>have any laws against your possession of a handgun.
>
>I believe the 1986 McClure-Volkmer law protects you from law-enforcement
>harassment while you are in route to your destination.

That's the theory.  In practice you will be run through the legal system
if you are caught, in say, New Jersey with a large capacity magazine or
their definition of an assault weapon, etc.  You will probably loose the
guns and spend a lot of money in court costs.  It's not fair but that's the
way it is.

If you tell us what states you will be travelling through we can give you
better advice.

>I believe that the law also says it is ok to  have it in your car,
>provided it is not readily accessable & useable.

The gun and ammo both have to be locked and away from each other and the
driver.

>Call the BATF & ask them to send you a redbook.

Look under "Treasury Department" in the phone book.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: random@cbnewse.cb.att.com (David L. Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:40:27 GMT
Organization: AT&T

[Text regarding carry permits deleted.]

>>Then why are we threatening other people with jail?

> The police would like to know who has guns.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And it is our duty to restrict that knowledge.

	Random
	
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns