HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: CA course (was: the US Elections...)
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:32:04 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov19.062256.22369@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

> will not be able to purchase one when that day arrives. You will have to 
> wait fifteen (15) days, due to the California waiting period, and have
> first taken a required, non-existant safety course (as of January 1, 1993
> handgun purchasers in California must have taken such a course; however
> no state funds have been alocated for that course, nor have any private
> courses been named as an acceptable alternative. This is an example
> of an apparently reasonable law being abused to create a ban on handguns.)

Speaking of the California course, I have heard from a California gun
owner who is familiar with what is happening with this legislation, and
he claims that privately-run courses ARE acceptable.  They have to be
recognized, or accredited, or the like.  
-- 

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...
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:40:07 GMT
	<lairdb.721599387@crash.cts.com>
	<1992Nov15.005748.1874@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Nov15.005748.1874@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

<	   to firearms - sport hunting in particular. 

	Not entirely and not for the last 6 months.

	And not last year when HR-3371 had all the gun
	bans taken out thanks to NRA lobbying in the House.

<I will re-interate
<that sport hunting is morally indefensible. 

	That's an argument which might better be served
	on talk.politics.animals.
	
<No argument in
<its favor will survive even ten seconds of 'Bambi'. This leaves
< only target-shooting and self-defense as sellable issues. 
< You cannot convince the public that the interests of target
<  shooters is greater than the threat of drug gangs and
<  whacko boyfriends. 
	
	Said threats have been iterated and re-iterated
	in recent NRA "Crimestrike" ads.

<Due to adverse publicity, the NRA cannot
<  delve into the arena of self-defense.
	
	False. Not only CAN NRA do so, it *IS* doing so.

<ALternative voices are necessary.

	I agree; but expecting the same media machine that
	has spent years demonizing NRA to ever allow the
	alternative voices a fair hearing is extremely
	optimistic.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Please define assult weapon; was: Re: the US elections...
Organization: Racal-Datacom
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:23:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.002808.4508@csus.edu> altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
[BIG SNIP]
> There has been discussion
>on what options we have on assault weapons (including automatic weapons),
>and I think we've all but exhausted the subject.
   Please name any `assult weapon' that is not an automatic weapon.
 
Mark Urbin  Racal-Datacom  Boxborough, MA   urbin@interlan.interlan.com   
These opinions are mine.  No one else will admit to them.	          
"It is caffeine alone that sets my mind in motion.  It is through beans of
java that thoughts acquire speed, that hands acquire shakes, that shakes
become a warning...I am...IN CONTROL...OF MY ADDICTION!"
                        --From the Minicon Graffiti Wall, 1989(?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Sunday, 22 Nov 1992 15:30:07 MST
From: <ICDLJ@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Paxton Quigley on Faith Daniel's Show!

 We know who Paxton Quigley is.
 Which network airs the Faith Daniel's Show ?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Open Carry, Why Not?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:31:23 GMT

Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>In other words, just because you are allowed legal public carry, doesn't
>mean that store owners and such need let you on their premises while
>armed.  I'd imagine that the local bank guard may be disconcerted, not
>to mention being banned from airport gates

	I sent my Haskall in for some tuning the other day.  Standard UPS
ground shipping, so I bopped on it with the gun, took it out of the
plastic shipping box, showed her the empty magazine, cycled the action
to show it wasn't loaded, let her examine the breech, put it away and
shipped it off.  No sweat.  Then I noticed that the UPS station in
Drug Town is also a US Post Office station.

	I hate to think I just committed a federal offense showing the
UPS clerk that my gun was safe to ship according to their own regs.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >


Organization: Doctoral student, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:22:17 -0500 
From: Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Open Carry, Why Not?


Well aside from the possible strange reactions you may get from
indiviual folk (which after all may be fun :-) ), the primary detriment
to open carry would be with respect to private property.

In other words, just because you are allowed legal public carry, doesn't
mean that store owners and such need let you on their premises while
armed.  I'd imagine that the local bank guard may be disconcerted, not
to mention being banned from airport gates (actually this can be an
advantage: I'd love to pick you up but...).

-Seth

__________________________________________________________________________
"We... have no use for adventures.  Nasty disturbing uncomfortable
things!  Make you late for dinner!"  -- B. Baggins 

Seth Eliot,            Dept of Material Science and Engineering
                       Carnegie Mellon Univerity,   Pittsburgh, PA
ARPA    :eliot+@cmu.edu            --------------------------------------
   or    se08+@andrew.cmu.edu
Bitnet:  se08%andrew@cmccvb        
---------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Gun Control:  A modern, REALISTIC view.
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Nov16.020357.24@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
	<1992Nov16.085334.10791@nntp.uoregon.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:07:00 GMT

<In article <1992Nov16.085334.10791@nntp.uoregon.edu> davidw@cie.uoregon.edu (David Weingarten) writes:

<   davidw@cie.uoregon.edu (David Weingarten) writes:
<   >> OK, I've got to set some of this in perspective.  Let me start
<   >> out by saying that I am TOTALLY anti-gun.  England has something
<   >> like 7-10 gun deaths a year, and we have 20,000 or more.  That
,   >> alone says something.  

	It says that the English culture is, or rather, *was*, less
	violent than US culture. 

	Killings by ANY means are more rare in the UK than in
	the US, although that is changing. Per-capita
	murders with feet and/or fists are more rare in the UK
	than in the US, for example.

	Either the UK has "restrictions" on feet and/or fists,
	or there is a cultural difference that is more important
	than the presence or absence of things that can be
	used to kill people.
	

<I am for STRICT gun restrictions.

	Perhaps you will change your opinion when the facts
	have been placed before you.

<>you realize, of course, that every place such restrictions have been
<>put into place they've failed miserably.

<Like?

	The Republic of Mexico has stricter firearms laws than
	Great Britain; it is illegal for Mexican citizens to
	possess military-caliber firearms or ammunition, it
	is virtually impossible to legally obtain a handgun in
	Mexico and so forth.

	The murder rate for Mexico is difficult to obtain,
	but the reported murders for the city of Juarez,
	population 1,000,000 (approximately) in 1991 was
	over 120. This provides a murder rate of 12 per 100,000,
	higher than the US average.

	The city of El Paso, Texas (just across a concrete
	ditch from Juarez) population 500,000 (approx.) had
	52 murders in 1991, for a rate of 10.4 per 100,000.

	If "strict gun control" works, Juarez should have
	a lower murder rate than El Paso, shouldn't it?

	The case of Washinton, DC hardly bears repeating;
	it's impossible for anyone who isn't a police
	officer to get a handgun and has been since 1976,
	but the murder rate in DC is the highest in the US
	and has been for some years now.

	All this assumes that that the objective of "gun
	control" is to affect *criminals*. If the objective
	is to disarm the law-abiding while leaving the police
	and criminals armed, then it can be said
	to "work"...

[long text deleted]


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey)
Subject: Open Carry, Why Not?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:35:30 GMT

So after discovering that NC was an open carry state, I decided
to check it out for myself (I live in the small town of Boone, NC).  I
called and talked to the Wautauga County sheriff, and he told me that
as long as I wasn't a current or former mental patient that I could certainly
carry my pistol openly without any fear of trouble from local law enforcement.
In fact, he practically encouraged me to do so.
 
So why don't I carry?  I mean other than the fact that I don't have a good 
stylish holster. :)
 
Here's my question to ya'll:  given that I've the opportunity, can you
think of any reason why I shouldn't carry?  Many thanks in advance.
 
 
                                Ken


+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Ken Kirksey                | "A man cannot be too careful in his choice     |
| kkirksey@world.std.com     |  of enemies."                                  |
| The World, Brookline, MA   |                - Oscar Wilde                   |

-- 
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Ken Kirksey                | "A man cannot be too careful in his choice     |
| kkirksey@world.std.com     |  of enemies."                                  |
| The World, Brookline, MA   |                - Oscar Wilde                   |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Alert = Alive (was Re: Yoshi Hattori)
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 20:38:05 GMT

bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu (Brice Dowaliby) writes:

>I never said or implied that there were no Asian criminals.  But
>I refuse to live my life assuming that every stranger is an
>armed killer.

Be careful not to live your life assuming the opposite-- that everyone
you see is NOT an armed killer.  I don't think that you mean that, but
many people who are murdered don't die fighting their attacker.  They die
trying to figure out what is happening to them.  They aren't aware of
what is going on around them until it is too late to take any action.

Maintaining a constant attitude of alertness while in public is more
important than what weapons (if any) one chooses to arm his or her self
with.  If you aren't paying attention, the criminal will steal your
gun/knife/mace off your dead or dying body.

--- Scott
kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: Yoshi Hattori
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 20:52:20 GMT

jvh@nature.Berkeley.edu writes:

>	My own personal theory on this event-we-do-not-have-
>enough-information-on-to-judge is that the two youths were
>dressed for a Halloween party, thought they had found the
>Halloween party, and if he saw the gun, Hattori thought someone
>from the party was trying to scare them with a fake.  It may
>have been explained to Hattori that Halloween is a time people
>dress funny and try to scare each other.  It may even account
>for any reported boisterous behavior when the wife of the shooter
>answered the door. 
>
>	Since it was many days before the actual Halloween date, the
>homeowners would not be expecting trick-or-treaters or thinking of
>Halloween in any way.  If it had been actual Halloween, the woman
>might not have been as frightened at the door, but again she might
>have been, since Halloween has been used as a cover for crimes.
>
>	In any case, theories aside, anyone with common sense can
>make a fatal mistake -- none of us are immune, I think.
>
>Joan V

With 20/20 hindsight, perhaps a warning shot would have been appropriate.
That, along with more verbal commands might have averted the incident.
Warning shots usually aren't a good idea, and not knowing any details
maybe it wasn't possible in this instance.

Just my speculation,

Scott
kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: A thought on the comming gun bans
Keywords: To purchase, or not to purchase....
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:12:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.35227.12266@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov9.165550.14827@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>>exempting previous owners.) The real question is, what constitutes
>>"just compensation"? Senator Chaffee of Rhode Island seems to think
>>that $40 is "just compensation" for the average handgun...
>

Ft. Worth, TX is trying to start a gun buying program to get guns off the
streets. They're talking about $20-30 each! The only things I can see 
happening at this price are:

  1. Theft of handguns for the express purpose of selling them to the police.
  2. Nothing, because you can get more from most anyone, anytime.

Jeff Achenbach 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: smittie@csulb.edu (Smittie)
Subject: Re: Alert = Alive (was Re: Yoshi Hattori)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:26:06 GMT

>Be careful not to live your life assuming the opposite-- that everyone
>you see is NOT an armed killer.  I don't think that you mean that, but
>many people who are murdered don't die fighting their attacker.  They die
>trying to figure out what is happening to them.  They aren't aware of
>what is going on around them until it is too late to take any action.

>Maintaining a constant attitude of alertness while in public is more
>important than what weapons (if any) one chooses to arm his or her self
>with.  If you aren't paying attention, the criminal will steal your
>gun/knife/mace off your dead or dying body.

That the above is true in the US is a very sad commentary on the state of
affairs in the US.

smittie
-- 
                             Tada mono de ha nai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEnie, MCI, AOL:Smittie   All of these accounts except MCI will die on or
smittie@beach.csulb.edu   about Dec 31. UNIX will be forwarded for 2 weeks.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini)
Subject: Re: Gun Control:  A modern, REALISTIC view.
Reply-To: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: High Energy Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:14:29 GMT

In article <SMITTIE.92Nov18140803@beach.csulb.edu>, smittie@csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:
>>England has something like 7-10 gun deaths a year, and we have 20,000 or more.

	another lie. The numbers I've seen are in the 30-60 range, and I believe
	those numbers are for with-gun murders, while the 20k noted above
	includes about 50% suicides. [remember that suicide _is_ homicide. . . ]

*1110 W. Green/Urbana IL 61801/217-333-0505/cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Paxton Quigley on Faith Daniel's Show!
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:49:52 GMT

<ICDLJ@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:

> We know who Paxton Quigley is.
> Which network airs the Faith Daniel's Show ?

NBC.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
GE: Perhaps not Evil Incarnate, but certainly close enough for
    government work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A modern, REALISTIC view.
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:31:17 GMT

chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:

>In the American Revolution the British had the most powerful navy in
>the world.  The could have cut America off from the rest of the world.
>They could have kept fighting and probably would have eventually
>killed all the rebels.  They weren't willing to do so - it was too
>expensive.

The expense would not have been just in money.  Other European
countries were supporting the colonial rebels and for Britain 
to have committed more forces to suppress the rebellion would
(a) have been politically unpopular, and (b) have made Britain
and British interests in other parts of the world vulnerable to
the French and Spanish.

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:16:38 -0500

In article <22512@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.211213.1878@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
> } In article <1992Nov13.183540.6980@mcs.anl.gov>, shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
> } > 
> } > If the NRA with all it's clout finds it nearly impossible to get the
> } > media barrons to run their adds I suspect that the smaller organizations
> } > have found it completely impossible not to mention expensive.
> } 
> } 	As I said to someone else, if Op-Rescue can get their ads
> } 	run on CNN/TBS - a network owned by the guy who squeezes
> } 	Jane Fondas goodies every night - then the NRA could get
> } 	some time as well. Someone isn't trying very hard.
> 
> But there have been NRA ads on network TV.  They've usually featured
> Charleton Heston and a few other celebs.

	EXACTLY ! All I have been hearing is how the NRA and groups
	with a similar interest can't get anyone to run their ads.
	Well, obviously, there ARE places that will run the ads.
	Just because say TIME or NEWSWEEK may be difficult does not
	mean that all means of getting the message out are closed.
	To ask TIME to run pro-RKBA ads would be akin to asking
	Pat Robertson to advertize the upcoming 'Guns & Roses'
	concert during his show - a philosophical impossibility.
	Though, if TIME is really as 'liberal' as they claim to
	be, they should grant space to causes they may not agree
	with. Such an attitude is the better part of liberalism -
	and something which has been sorely lacking from it of
	late since narrow-minded loons entranced by the sound of
	their own rhetoric and convinced of the invincible rightness
	of their point of view have taken charge. 

	Anyway, by using financial resources effeciently, taking out
	ads in medium-circulation newspapers, semi-local TV etc., 
	the resistance of the illiberal 'liberal' newsmags can be
	circumvented. Such routes are also much less expensive
	than producing and paying for a glossy TV ad worthy of
	national broadcast. Sometimes, less will buy you more. For
	non-NRA groups, the newspaper/local-TV route is something
	they can afford and can gain large-scale recognition through.

-- JM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:44:13 GMT


In article <-285439963@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com>, blanch@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (David Blanchard) writes:
|> > How about the Libertarian Party of the United States?
|> 
|> I don't think the LP can get mired in a single issue. Even though they
|> fully support RKBA, taking a highly aggressive stance would alienate
|> many of those they need to enlist. Pretty much the same place the NRA is
|> in. 

I beg your pardon?  The Libertarian Party has taken the most "highly
aggressive stance" of any national pro-RKBA organization, *including* the
NRA.  They don't often get a chance to reach national audiences through
the major media, but every public statement I've heard from them is
absolutely uncompromising on the individual's right to own, possess,
and carry a gun.  They are also absolutely uncompromising on the
individual's right to possess and consume drugs, amass and dispose
of real and personal property, etc., etc.

I suspect the positions of the LP which are most likely to alienate
people are those seeking to wean the individual away from the welfare
state (momma federal government).  I'm sure statements like "Social
Security is a fraudulent pyramid scheme" frighten a lot more people
than saying "any responsible adult should be allowed to possess a
machine gun".

The LP certainly has their problems, but being gutless or inconsistent
in their public positions isn't among them.
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu
From: romigr@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A Modern, HIPE
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:41:20 GMT

What makes anybody think that the entire military will side with
the gov. if there is another civil war?  Didn't anyone read there
history books?


		RDR NRA/ILA/USMC
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Open Carry, Why Not?
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:22:24 GMT

In article <Bxw7B6.4vF@world.std.com> kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey) writes:

}Here's my question to ya'll:  given that I've the opportunity, can you
}think of any reason why I shouldn't carry?  Many thanks in advance.

What's your training level in use of deadly force and weapon retention?

If you've had the appropriate training, go for it.  If not, get trained
first, then go for it.

I'll be interested to hear your experiences.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:00:48 GMT

In article <cf1KNpu00UhWE29VFV@andrew.cmu.edu> ra01+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rikiya Asano) writes:
>                   No, I don't have a big urge to see a railroading.
>but, I do want to see justice. He killed that boy. 

So?

>He could have said
>get off of my property! Now!! 

As I recall, there was a verbal warning, after which the deceased continued 
to close.

>But, no, He shot him in his chest with a
>44 or 45. Just wonder my friend, if you were going to a party, and by
>mistake you and your 15 year old friend, knocked on the wrong door. And,
>all of a sudden,"FREEZE"! "BOOM"!!

I can easily imagine.  I'd NEVER try to enter someone else's house without 
eyecontact or a clear, on the spot, verbal invitation.  At "FREEZE" I'd stop 
moving, and certainly not attempt to close.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns