HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cwt@mitre.org (Carl Traber)
Subject: Re: That GUN flame --
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA.
	<1992Nov21.000434.19476@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 12:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.000434.19476@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

   In article <1248@abb-sc.abb-sc.COM> ksm@abb-sc.abb-sc.com (Ashley) writes:
   >	I recently spoke by e-mail with someone at the FBI in Quantico
   >VA. He suggested a method of gun control that makes sense (no not
   >banning). All guns would be registered with a balistic test on file. I
   >don't fully understand what all this involved, but I do understand
   >that every gun leaves it's "fingerprint" on the bullet and casing when
   >fired.

   Someone competent at the FBI would know that ballistic fingerprints
   change, and rather quickly at that.  The change rate can be increased
   by anyone interested in doing to.  (Case marks have the same problem.)
   Also, both barrels and the pieces that mark cases can be changed
   easily in many cases.

[remainder deleted]

Changing out gun barrels is a nearly-trivial exercise on most
semiautomatic pistols.  I can swap barrels on my .22 in under
a minute, and in less than 2 minutes on my Colt Gold Cup
National Match .45, both of which are target guns where the
weapon's accuracy is preserved throughout the operation.

If I wasn't as finicky/careful, I could do it even faster.

Further, the figure I recall for changing the markings on
barrels (i.e. the "signature" imposed on bullets when they
have been fired) to the point of non-recognizability is about
100 rounds with rifles; pistols should not be much more than
that.  And firing that many rounds is a trivial task; many
people fire mre than that at one range session.

-- Carl Traber    cwt@shockley.mitre.org
                  My opinions, not MITRE's
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens)
Subject: Re: Fla. Nat. Guard Leaving
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:44:08 GMT

In article <1e8340INN3al@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:
>
>It may be a good idea for those who use this net to keep the rest
>of us posted on what REALLY happens after the National Guard
>leaves South Florida in the next few days.....there may well be
>some very good publicity for privately owned firearms (not to
>mention ASSAULT WEAPONS) to add to the rash of good publicity
>guns have gotten already from the area. 

	Why?  As I understand it, the Guard makes a single pass through
neighborhoods before 9 every night.  That's it (unless it's changed
since then.  This was from an article in Time a few months ago.)

	On an unrelated note, I was watching Investigative Reports
on A&E a few weeks ago when they did a thing on the LA riots.  They
showed footage of Guardsman looking for snipers reported to be in this 
apartment building.  It was hilarious.  They drove up in an armored 
vehicle, shined their spot lights in the apartment windows, and when they 
didn't see anyone, drove off.  Way to get them snipers!

	Now, I can understand the fact they don't want to get shot (I know
*I* wouldn't, either.)  Also, I'm sure they didn't want to go busting
into an innocent bystander's home, possibly killing them in the stress
of the situation, but isn't there *something* more they can do than just
shine a light through the window?!  I mean, if that's all they're going to
do, why bother?

>God knows that gun owners (as well as ALL Americans) are goingg
>to need all the good publicity we can get, what with the
>prevaricating, philandering draft dodger about to take up 
>White House residence.
>I for one would certainly appreicate this information, if there
>are any south Floridians monitoring.
>A Cleveland Plain Dealer (AP?) story in the 11-15 (Sunday)
>paper had in interesting quote: a Homestead (FL) resident asked
>a departing Guardsman "Who will watch my house after you leave?"
>The guardsman answered, "Who watched it before we came?"
>Something to think about.

	Who watched it while the Guard was there?  That's something
to think about, too.

>-- 
>bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
>"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
>temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin


						Steve


------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Read between the lines                             Steven J Owens @ CCI
 Criticize the words they're selling             (716) 482-5000 Ext 2867
 Think for yourself and feel the walls                 sjo@op632.cci.com
 Become sand beneath your feet." - Queensryche "Anybody Listening?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: Gun Control:  A modern, REALISTIC view.
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:32:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.152732.7163@digi.lonestar.org> jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel) writes:
>
>  o one-time pad - Sender & receiver each has a pad with a different
>    cypher on each page.  Message 1 uses page 1.  Message 2 uses page
>    2.  Each cypher is different -- random combination or other method
>    for this cypher -- and the constant chaning code will prevent the
>    "Authorities" from decoding your message *before* your fellow
>    conspirator does.  Not perfect, but damn difficult.
>
Different cyphers are not particularily helpful.  The unbreakable one
time pad I last saw described involves a trivial encoding in which the key
is at least as long as the message, not self-correlated, and never reused: 
	You simply XOR (exclusive or) text and key.
While this code is provably unbreakable if the key is truly random, the
catch with this one is that the keys have to be exchanged in the first
place, and are no easier to exchange than the text!  It does, however,
allow you to exchange keys under "safe" conditions, and communicate later
under "unsafe" conditions.

>  o Book code - Sender & receiver each has a copy of the same book.
>    The code consists of a string of numbers indicating page, paragraph,
>    line, and word.  The receiver uses his book to decode the message.
>    This is unbreakable unless the authorities have the same book.
>
Please...this is unbreakable ONLY if you change books very often (and do
not allow these elements to repeat) AND the authorities don't have
the books you are using conveniently encoded (there are far fewer books
in this world than there are, for example, DES keys).

Jens
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: the US elections...
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 15:34:19 EST
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:

> especially African-Americans. One third of all college age black males
> are in jail (I'm not sure if this was a California or US statistic).

I think you misremembered your stat. What you read probably said
"correctional supervision" not "jail". Correctional supervision
includes jail, prison, probation or parole. Only about 25-30 %
of all people under correctional supervision are in jail or
prison. I seem to recall that the stat I saw said something like
one in four young black males was under correctional supervision.
I wouldn't have much trouble believing it was as high as one in
three in some states. It's quite a lot no matter how you slice
it.

(If your mail bounces use the address below.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mjm3170@zeus.tamu.edu (MATTSON, MATTHEW JUL)
Subject: Glock 23...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:30:00 GMT

For all Glock fans...

I just purchased a Glock 23 and it is a FABULOUS piece of work!!!!

Matt
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,dc.general
From: ice@socrates.umd.edu (Fredrik Nyman)
Subject: Washington Post refutes HCI arguments
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:10:11 GMT

(Did that subject line get anyone to wake up? :-)

In today's "Magazine" supplement to the Washington Post, there's
an article _True Detective_ about homicide detective V. I. Smith,
a D.C. cop.

Quote from p. 25:
"From 1964 to 1987, the number of Washington homicides fluctuated
between 132 and 287, with 225 posted in 1987. [...] Then, in 1988,
homicides skyrocketed to 369 -- then 434, 474 and 483 in the following
years, with the pace flagging only slightly so far this year. [...] In
the old days, murder was more often a domestic affair, and a victim's
killer was often found among his family.  But by 1991, only 4 percent
of Washington homicides were domestics, while more than three-quarters
were attributed to drugs, robberies, burglaries, arguments or
non-drug-related retaliation."

Although this *can* admittedly be used as an argument to support gun
control ("Guns kill their owners or are used on their owners'
families"), I feel that it also warrants questioning DC's
near-absolute gun ban.  Given the extremely high crime rate and that
so many homicides occur during robberies and burglaries, it is
disgusting that DC denies its residents the right to defend themselves.

In fact, I'm inclined to believe that the gun ban in DC *contributes*
to the number of crimes.  If a criminal knows there is an almost-zero
risk that he will encounter armed resistance during a robbery,
carjacking, or burglary, it seems more than reasonable to think that
that ENCOURAGES him.  The same goes for DC's "criminal justice" system
which seems far more concerned with putting criminals back on the
street than putting them behind bars where they belong.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: New concealed carry in Texas...
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:24:50 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1erraiINN45v@menudo.uh.edu> Chris Struble <mece3d@uh.jetson.edu> writes:
>>skeeter@skatter.usask.ca writes:

>>Introduced into the legislature; not passed yet; what are the odds
>>Governor Richards will sign it even if it does pass?

>
>About the same odds as a snowball in Matamoros. Still, I think I will
>write my State Rep. on this one. In favor, of course.

Oh, I'm not sure Richards will automatically veto it--she is a politician,
after all, and will look to see which way the wind blows. She wants to get
re-elected, you see. In addition, she doesn't, to my knowledge, have a
really strong history of anti-gun activity. By all means let's write to the
governor also.



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:37:19 GMT

In article <1e6pevINNms5@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>>I've heard some claim that we might have had a violent revolution because of
>>the Great Depression if we hadn't had the New Deal (although it could be
>>argued that this WAS the violent revolution).
>
>I think there is only one group of people who might use the phrase "violent
>revolution" to describe the New Deal.

Really? Are "Yarvinites" unique?  (Note that Starr didn't use "violent
revolution" to describe the New Deal.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Yoshi Hattori
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:15:46 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>In article <BD.92Nov18133022@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>But that's beside the point.  I'll grant that we don't have all
>>the facts, but from the facts we do have the guy acted incredibly
>>irresponsibly.  If someone was breaking into my house I would 
>>leave by the back door and go to the neighboor's house where I 
>>would call the cops.
>
>Sure, go ahead and abandon your family. Your two year old son.
>At least you might survive.

Phil, your ignorance about my family is matched only by your
ignorance about the proper use of firearms.
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lion@netcom.com (carl loeber)
Subject: Re: Open Carry, Why Not?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:26:34 GMT

 haven't heard anyone posting from California.  We are in San Jose,
which is Santa Clara County.

We have been seeking to carry openly here, though the law also says that
in a incorporated area (city) one may not have any ammunition attached
to the weapon, it still may be carried.

Our thought is to carry openly in a side holster, which the law allows,
and to carry a loaded clip in a pocket, or elsewhere, perhaps in another
case.  It cannot be a military type holster, to which the clip is attached
to the gun case.

One of us has tried this several times with no problems.                                 
We have prepared letters to the Chief of Police, Sheriff, District Attorney,
and County Supervisor informing them of the practice, and the reason for it.
No response yet.

The NRA local attorney expert  (referred by NRA) told me that I had the proper
understanding of the law, and that the practice would be legal.

California state law regarding firearms restricts local jurisdictions
from making any separate gun laws. 

Question: Anyone else have any experience with California in this regard?

Carl and Clint

Pls E-Mail along with any post)

t
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A Modern, HIPE
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:40:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.104120.9294@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> romigr@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
>What makes anybody think that the entire military will side with
>the gov. if there is another civil war? 

Ignorance?  Stupidity?  Wishful thinking?

+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      |                                               |
| NRA               ILA |  "Fear a goverment that fears your guns."     |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com |                                               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQCNAisCo2UAAAED/i9nZNA3RtKL1a3SPShkRYQqkl1tQX2ky8ghJp3ljKkfQlN9
UyyWZaurtJhb9holVjk1w8gVF5UflMolf08qOdvPUz60oH+sDUPG0+WiClBDTDus
QgFnP4t2BB1mpLxzhi4E++0+3zH231ItA+0l9Cp5fr70rOX69EXJO1UF3PhDAAUR
tCNKb2huIEthcHNvbiA8amthcHNvbkBuaXMubmFpdGMuY29tPg==
=TNIh
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Control:  A modern, REALISTIC view.
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:06:06 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

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.

>Someone out there correct me if I am wrong but I believe that handguns have
>only been legal for ownership by the general public for two or three brief
>periods in the History of England. For the most part, guns have not been legal
>in England at all.

Firearms were legal before WWI. After the war, they were outlawed since
the aristocracy and bourgeoisie feared armed and dangerous 'Reds.' The
British laws were strictly based on class related fears.

>Many people like to use Japan in the same example. However, the same thing is
>true. Guns have never been available to the general populace.

Or most other weapons after some feudal decrees. Armed peasants could resist
thefts by the samurai and the nobles. This is why the martial arts use
such things as rice winnowing tools (numchuks.)
 
>This is the case with most, if not all, of the countries where total gun
>control is in place and there are very few gun related deaths.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull)
Subject: Re: NRA misses deadline for Supreme Court filing (WHY?)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:30:54 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto,CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]


Rich Cower (cower@SSD.intel.com) wrote:
: 
: 
: A relative heard a blurb on the TV news Saturday evening that the NRA and the
: Fresno (he wasn't sure about this location) gun club had MISSED the filing 
: deadline for taking the assualt weapon ban in California to the Supreme Court.
: 
: Does anyone have any more information on this? Does anyone know WHY? I find
: this very disturbing, and am wondering why I continue to pay my dues to the
: NRA.
: 
: 

 There was short article on the SJ Merky news that said the NRA dropped the
case due to the current political climate. 

RP

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx20.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: A Coffee-House Conversation with an Imaginary Nadja (Was Re: 
    Eva Clayton bio)
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:29:56 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <37624@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A.  
Johns) writes:
> In article <1992Nov12.034659.26945@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>  
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> 
> # Fine: Explain how you plan to disarm _criminals_ (completely and
> # totally), despite the fact only 8% of them legally purchase their
> # guns. Once you have explained this, your argument will be relevant.
> 
> I love the argument "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have
> guns."
> 
> Just imagine how that would clean up our judicial system.  If simple
> possession of a gun were punishable by 10 years in jail, then we could
> get all the criminals off the street without having to prove any
> complicated cases.  No expert witnesses, no crime labs, no dueling
> attorneys.
> 
> A criminal wouldn't dare carry a gun, because that would identify him
> immediately as a criminal.
> 
> David

Considering the levels of compliance with recent gun restrictions
in California and New Jersey you'd also have to imprison at least
one member of almost half of all families in the U.S.  Conservatively
you'd have to provide for the incarceration of 50,000,000 Americans.

Robert K.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:24301 va.general:130
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,va.general
Subject: Re: Open Carry, Why Not?
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:05:22 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


We have similar problems here in Virginia, which I was more than happy
to air at a public hearing a few months ago.

The hearing was the misnamed 'Governor's Commission on Crime' which in
itself was a crime.  Among the things this commission advocated were
increases in the length and breadth of mandatory minimum sentences,
admission of 'Victim Impact Statements,' and more firearms
restrictions.

During the public comment portion of the public hearing, the last
three people to speak (and I was the last one on the list) advocated
returning to the citizens of Virginia the right to defend themselves. 
When current VA law concerning open carry was pointed out to us, we
laughed.

My response: "While that is what the law may say, sir, in reality any
police officer seeing a person in civillian clothes openly armed will
immediately arrest said person.  The charge of choice in this instance
is disturbing the peace.  And the judge will convict on the officer's
say-so.  We have no right to defend ourselves in Northern Virginia."

When asked what should be done, my answer was similar to the responses
concerning mandatory sentences that are ignored: "Make it clear to
judges, commonwealth attorneys, and police officers that ignoring the
law will give them a new uniform and a new job, namely, prison gray
and butt-buddy to a felon named 'Bubba.'"

Not polite, to be sure, but it got my point across.

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
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.  Have you paid today?
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Neal Knox Update
Date: 18 Nov 92 03:26:37 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA25697; Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:29:56 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA03049; Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:29:53 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 5314; Tue, 17 Nov 92 20:32:41 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 1477; Tue, 17 Nov 92 20:32:40 MST
X-To: talk.politics.guns.usenet

From: rlewis@isi.edu (Roger Lewis)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Neal Knox Update
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:43:20 GMT
Reply-To: rlewis@venera.isi.edu (Roger Lewis)
Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California


>The war on alcohol was an admitted failure, the war on drugs is a failure,
>what makes you think a war on guns would succeed?

      I didn't say a war on guns would succeed.  I said that, most likely,
      between 1994 and 1996, a war on guns will be WAGED.  Hey, come on,
      chum, get hep.  We have to "heal the nation".   hehehehehheheh.

      I can just see it -

  1995:  Escape from America!

      Angry taxpayers, paying huge gas taxes, divide a nation.

      Angry military commanders, corncobbed during workhours, angry at
      the lifted ban.

      Angry welfare mothers, deprived of additional pay for play.

      Angry ex-gun owners, deprived of cold steel.

      Angry current gun owners, hiding in secret.

      Angry Ross Perot supporters, carrying banners with " $6 TRILLION
      AND COUNTING ".

      This should be interesting.