HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Stop
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:17:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.041125.16249@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.205709.10363@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>There are very few good reasons to shoot to kill, and none come up in
>>civilian use.  (Maybe there are some in judicial or military use, but
>>that's not relevant in this discussion.)  There are plenty of good
>>reasons to use potentially deadly force to STOP someone.  Stopping
>>them may well result in their death, but that wasn't the purpose,
>>stopping them was.
>>
>>Think about the differences between shoot to kill and shoot to stop
>>and why they're relevant.
>
>Agreed, but how many of the MILLIONS of gun owners in the US have the training
>to know the difference and the skill to stop without killing in a wide 
>variety of situations with any or all of their weapons. Not many I guess.

Back when I believed as Jewell does, I talked to hundreds of gun
owners about this very question.  (My sample included lots of
survivalists, not to mention neo-Nazis and other scum, not just "nice"
gun owners.)  I was wrong.

While I found lots of people who talked about "shoot to kill" and
insisted that "shoot to kill" was appropriate and that "shoot to stop"
was just wrong, I also found out that their use of "shoot to kill"
wasn't consistent with that label; they meant "shoot to stop".  I
found this by describing situations where "shoot to kill" implied
different behavior than "shoot to stop".  They picked the "shoot to
stop" behavior and some were offended that I even suggested the
possibility of the "shoot to kill" behavior.

They understood that the use of deadly force to stop was appropriate
only when failure to stop someone would likely result in immediate
death or grave bodily harm.  Their proposed use in those situations
was consistent with "shoot to stop", not "shoot to kill".

The objection to "shoot to stop" was that they thought it meant the
use of deadly force in situations where it wasn't justified or the use
of deadly force to do something other than stop someone.  (In other
words, they rejected shooting someone in the leg or trying to shoot a
weapon out of their hand.  That's a nice way to maim someone, but it's
useless for stopping.)

It doesn't take much training to shoot to stop; center of mass is
the target.

In short, they said that they wanted to behave appropriately and
there's not much reason to believe that they don't have the ability to
do so.

Like I wrote above; I was surprised by this result.  However, reality
is preferable to preconceptions.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Bush on Gun Control (Was Re: "Demo Gun Control")
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:41:08 GMT

In article <182818@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:

>In article <v3hm39a.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>There are laws on teh books in virtually every state making it illegal
>>to use a firearm in a crime. The federal law and many states also have
>>laws on the books making it illegal to possess an unregistered machine
>>gun, firearm silencer, short barrelled shotgun etc. Why in the world
>>do we think that passing additional restrictive legislation will put
>>people behind bars when in many cases the laws curretly on the books
>>aren't enforeced?
>>
>>The only explanation for this bizarre situation is that the anti-gunners
>>simply want to completely disarm the law abiding American. This is the
>>greatest single threat to our liberty as it removes the final
>>recall athority from the public. These gun grabbing Democrats have to
>>go!
>>
>Uh, Dick...

>I believe Bush (you know, a Republican) supported the adoption of the Brady
>Bill last election.

     No, last election George Bush said "No new gun laws."   Of course,
he also said "No new taxes."  What he *did* was say he would sign a bill
which contained the Brady Bill *if* it contained his crime bill stuff,
which included an expansion of the death penalty and a weakining of the
exclusionary rule.

>George Lambert

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================
From: jca@crash.cts.com (John C. Archambeau)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Enlightenment
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:39:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA

susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
> [ Actually Terminator/Rifleman ... ]
>Hi.  I've finally realized my statist arguments are completely phony
>and I wish to admit that--being in Australia--I don't have the insight
>to even begin to debate you on the Bill of Rights.  I apologize on
>behalf of all statists around the world.  We are wrong.

Get a clue, Rifleman.  If it came from news@athena.mit.edu then it
obviously came from you.  I hope you are foolish enough to carry an LAPD
badge in CA, then it will give two of my living relatives in law
enforcement a license to throw you in prison.  Being fresh meat in prison,
you will wish that they would have shot you.

It's idiots like you that give the Brady Bunch ammunition to play with.
Same sort of mentality that puts live rounds in firearms at gun shows
hoping that an inexperienced person has an accidental discharge not
caring if someone gets killed.

I've said my 9mm worth on the issue.

Does anyone know how to add a line to one's kill file to screen out
messages posted from a particular site in the sender line of the news
header?
--

     // JCA

 /*
 ** ARPA    : jadpc!thewall!jca@nosc.mil | 13 + 1 = 228... 
 ** INTERNET: jca@thewall.cts.com        |
 **           jca@thewall.uucp           |           SIG-Sauer P228...
 ** UUCP    : nosc!jadpc!thewall!jca     |
 */
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:17789 soc.culture.latin-america:2687
From: sanchez@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Rafael O.S. Lamoso <A man on a mission>)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: The New World Order (Sendero vs. Armed Farmers)
Date: 20 Jul 92 15:20:46 EST

In article <1992Jul14.223002.23151@trl.oz.au>, djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
> In article <viking.711047140@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>In <13ref2INNqgu@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@triangle.Berkeley.EDU
>> (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>>
>>>Speaking of this new world order, where balance means that
>>>Bush treats Sendero and Fujimora with equal disdain, Peru
>>>has finally found the key tactic to defeat Sendero. Namely,
>>>give the farmers rifles so they can defend themselves. And
>>>these uneducated farmers are kicking Sendero ass.
>>
>>>Peasant farmers, with guns and land, fighting for their freedom.
>>>Just like our forefathers here in USA. May God bless them ...
>>
>>	I note the cross-posting, hence a fairly generic reply.  What is
>>our government doing to help/hinder these farmers, and what is their success
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>rate?  It sounds like a good lesson in popular revolutionary success and
>>also may serve an abject lesson in the RKBA.
>>
> 
> Is this another case of one of the 'superpowers' interfering in the domestic
> affairs of another country. Isn't it about time we put an end to this kind
> of interference and stop playing with the lives of other people. Remember -
> Afghanistan, Nicoragua, Chile, Bay of Pigs etc etc. Remember the 'Rainbow
> Warrior' !!!!! Leave international affairs to the UN.
> 
> DJ...
> 
> 
=============================================================================

Estoy completamente de acuerdo...

I agree completely with you.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: Cosmoline
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:04:37 GMT

In article <archer.188@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.152143.13906@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
>>(preferably not 4473'ed at all) and an adequate supply of cosmoline
>                                                           ^^^^^^^^^
>Wazzat?

Cosmoline - a trademark for petrolatum of a heavy grade, used esp. as
a protective coating for firearms, metals, etc. [from Webster's New
World Dictionary, 2nd College Ed.]

Informally, its the green goo you put on firearms when they'll be
in *very* long term storage - the stuff is extremely moisture-resistant.

Drew 
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18255 alt.politics.clinton:1030
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:09:42 GMT
	<1992Jul25.232111.18191@rotag.mi.org> <5166@transfer.stratus.com>
	<1992Jul28.151442.9016@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Jul28.151442.9016@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
<In article <5166@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
<>In article <1992Jul25.232111.18191@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
<>
<>> While I'm somewhat sympathetic to a universal RKBA, I don't believe the 2nd 
<>> establishes any such thing. Propose a new amendment if you want...
<>
<>Luckily the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and has regularly and 
<>consistently for over 200 years.

 <  I don't think that's strictly true.  I believe that more modern
 <  Supreme Courts have held (at least once) that the 'militia' clause
 <  does indeed restrict, and that the National Guard meets that -- hence
 <  there is no guaranteed right for anyone else to have weapons.

	Then cite the case, please.

<   That is, after all, why waiting periods, etc., are constitutional.  Or
<   so the claim goes.

	The claim is false. The reason that various infringements
	on the 2nd Amendment are "legal" is because the Supreme
	Court has refused to hear cases challenging them.

	Note, however, that refusal of the SC to hear a case
	makes no comment at all on the Constitutionality of
	the law in question.
From: fjohnson@kinks.rutgers.edu (Floyd Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: weapon identification
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:47:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Do any of you know the make and caliber of a weapon called the "Street
Sweeper". All I can surmise is that it's an automatic
"intermediate"-somewhere in size between a pistol and a rifle.

Floyd Johnson
New Brunswick, NJ
-- 
*********************************************************************
"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We've got a full tank of gas, half a pack
of cigarettes, its' dark, and we're wearing shades." 
					-_The Blues Brothers_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: "Direct" methods of crime control
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:47:50 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul29080532@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

|> 	Question: which will open the average house door faster, 
|> 	a lock pick or a pipe wrench?

A 5 foot long piece of 4x4 beats them both, for the average entry door.

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: weapon identification
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:23:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.041533.15485@convex.com> tighe@convex.com writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>Of the 9 facts I presented, 8 were correct and 1 may have been technically
>inaccurate, although it was semantically correct. The jury is still out.
>Hardly spreading misinformation, especially relative to this newsgroup.

Since drum magazines are different from revolving cylinders, Tighe
has interesting view of the word "correct".

Tighe got the trivia right, the gauge and maybe the manufacturer.  He
INTENTIONALLY blew the action type and for some reason blew the
magazine type.  We can push the "correct percentage" fairly high by
counting spelling and grammar, but that just demonstrates how useless
that criteria is.

>> "Most" depends on whether or not Cobray was the manufacturer.
> 
>Well, the one I handled at a recent Gun Show was stamped Cobray. And
>according to the 10-Jul-92 issue of Shotgun News, it is also. This is
>documented in advertisements by different distributors on pages 24 and 27.
>Also, both advertisements specifically state that it has a "12 Rd. Drum
>Mag". So it appears it is you that is spreading misinformation, by claiming
>I was wrong.

Is cobray the only manufacturer of that gun?  (Yes, cobray makes a gun
like that, but the fact that Springfield Armory makes a 1911A1 clone
doesn't make SA THE manfacturer of 1911A1 clones.)

>> There were at least TWO manufacturers, one used the name "street sweeper"
>> while the other(s) used some other name.  The guns were functionally
>> identical.
> 
>Not exactly. There is also an advertisement on page 132 for the Striker 12,
>and it looks very similar to the Street Sweeper. In fact, the advertisement
>specifically states, "Don't Confuse us with the Street Sweeper". It appears
>you have done just that.

The fact that manufacturers may want to distinguish their products
does not mean that said products are actually different.  There are a
number of manufacturers of 1911A1 clones and many of them will tell
you that their guns are different than those produced by others.
They'll tell you "don't confuse us with <x>", even though the guns are
parts-interchangable.

Feel free to argue that we should always believe manufacturers....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:09:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.203354.28594@ttinews.tti.com>, reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul24.033007.17091@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
|> 
|> >> [forcible, unwelcomed "outing" deleted] would not be
|> 
|> That's YOU?  You, THE RIFLEMAN, are GREG MCLAREN of MIT?  Thanks for
|> telling me; I didn't know who he was referring to!  Neither did most
|> other people, I'm sure.  Surprisingly sporting of you.

I laughed when I saw "The Rifleman"'s followup - 99% of the readers of
this newsgroup had No Idea(TM) who Greg McLaren was, and, if he'd kept
his trap shut about being "outed", they'd still be without a clue.  I
didn't say anything at the time, but now that Reid's pointed out the
absence of the cat from the bag...

Welcome to reality, and adulthood, Greg.  You screwed up big-time, but
the penalities are pretty low.  Consider it a valuable lesson, cheaply
learned.

Now dump the pseudonym.

Oh, and don't plan on a career in security, secrets, or damage control. :-)

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: Gun Rights Advocates -- descriptive name
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:29:29 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

Just a couple of points, from two different but related posts...

>|important for armor piercing than shape and I always use shotguns.
>|Am I wrong?  I had thought that a slug shot from a 12 gau. would
>|be enough to set most anyone on their ass, armor or no.

Doubtful, unless they happened to be overbalanced or something at the 
time.  I've seen (filmed) people getting hit with large caliber 
handgun rounds etc.  Basically, if it didn't knock the shooter down, 
it won't knock down the shootee.

>My assumption with soft body armor is that the material is strong
>enough not to break (A weaved multiple-layer cloth matrix) as a bullet
>impacts it and expends energy deforming itself. Since soft body armor
>that can withstand hits by .44Mags and 12-gauge slugs is sold, one
>assumes that some layers are penetrated by the stress of the bullet
>impact alone; in the case of a blunt hard object like a ball bearing,
>I would theorize that not enough localized pressure to break all the
>layers would occur...

Basically, despite endless arguments of shocking power etc, it appears 
from studies of people wearing vests that the primary killing power of 
a gunshot wound comes from penetration, not from simply shock.  I can 
off hand think of only one case where a person wearing a vest was shot,
(and we are talking about 1500 or so cases by now) where the vest was 
not penetrated, but the victim died.  In general it is my understanding 
that a harder, pointier bullet is more likely to penetrate.  This is 
why .22's penetrated the earlier vests.  It is likely in my mind that 
a hard pointed (= armor piercing) bullet will penetrate a vest.  Heck, 
even a pointed object such as a knife will penetrate.  Can't say on 
ball bearings.....

Rick.

For the curious, the one case I mentioned above where the wearer of a vest
was killed even though the vest itself was not penetrated involved a 
45-70.  This is a very big, heavy, relatively slow round.  It was 
originally designed in the 1800's and killed a lot of buffalo.  In this 
case while the vest was not penetrated, the bullet drove the vest right 
through the victim, so that while the vest was not penetrated, the victim
was!  I know of no case where a bullet killed without penetrating into the 
victim.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Enlightenment
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:54:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.073919.22485@crash.cts.com> jca@crash.cts.com 
(John C. Dickhead) writes:
>Get a clue, Rifleman.  If it came from news@athena.mit.edu then it
>obviously came from you.

For your information, pinhead, there are 12,000-13,000 ACTIVE ACCOUNTS on
ATHENA.  There are on the neighborhood of 300 public workstations around
campus, not including many, many private workstations in various departments
and offices.  I hope you do not continue to slander me in this fashion.  Any
one of those people could have posted a message from news@athena.mit.edu.
Morever, anyone TELNETING in could also have posted such a message.

>I hope you are foolish enough to carry an LAPD
>badge in CA, then it will give two of my living relatives in law
>enforcement a license to throw you in prison.

Due to your ape-like intelligence, those relatives are most likely already
behind bars--in the San Diego Zoo.

>Being fresh meat in prison,
>you will wish that they would have shot you.

How charming.  I hope this isn't a threat upon my person if I ever
travel in California.

>It's idiots like you that give the Brady Bunch ammunition to play with.
>Same sort of mentality that puts live rounds in firearms at gun shows
>hoping that an inexperienced person has an accidental discharge not
>caring if someone gets killed.

In a leap of logic worth of the Three Stooges, you attribute to me leaving
loaded firearms carelessly around.

>Does anyone know how to add a line to one's kill file to screen out
>messages posted from a particular site in the sender line of the news
>header?

If, as you claim, I posted those messages, it would not take me long to
figure out how to change this field so as to read something other than athena,
but I would hardly waste my valuable time on the likes of you.  I've already
wasted too much writing this response.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:19:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.154750.20590@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.044342.8108@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>  Once again egnilges picks a fight with the NRA and the rest of the
>firearms community which have been against criminal use of firearms.  
>This time he is saying that by being against criminal acts that they 
>have deserted the cause of free speech.

Reread the posting until you understand it.  I am saying that the SC's
1988 decisions concerning the Revolutionary Communist Party's "symbolic"
burning of the flag contradicts its 1992 decision re Viktora.  For the
1992 decision rested upon an almost Scholastic decision between the
content and the form of speech, yet symbolic speech is different from
text in that form and content are intertwined in symbolic speech,
sharply separated in text.  Because any time the exciting phallic
signifier appears, even in the imagination of the gun fancier, his
thinking processes are obscured, my reference to "knocking over
convenience stores" got you all flustered and you focused on a
tangential issue.  Please try to focus in the future.

>


Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18439 alt.politics.clinton:1154
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "Burglar Tools" (Was: "Direct" methods of crime control)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:48:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Purdue University

[Everbody writes]
><   |> 	Question: which will open the average house door faster, 
><   |> 	a lock pick or a pipe wrench?
>
><   A 5 foot long piece of 4x4 beats them both, for the average entry door.
>
>	Ok, add all large lumber & trees to the list of "burglar
>	tools" to be restricted.
>
>	Hmmm....this here list is getting kinda long.....

Credit Cards, for "slipping" locks!  Outlaw them too!

(Please outlaw the ones I use, atleast :-).

Larry J


-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN) jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu                         # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:52:29 GMT

 Reid Kneeland wrote:	
>Heavens, good news about guns on a popular network TV show??
 Yes the network was FOX (too bad it wasn't one of the big 3)	
 the show the week before showed a NY city store owner defending
 his life with a concealed carry pistol after 2 thugs followed 
 him into his garage, and started shoot him because he didn't 
 have any money on him.

                   Myron Petro

***************************************************************
any opinions expressed here are originated by me and only me


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns