HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: A Waiting Period for Free Speech
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:56:07 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <veal.131@utkvm1.utk.edu>, veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) 
writes:

>     Amazing how what people consider "reasonable" with one right looks 
>silly when applied to another.

Maybe publishers should be licenced.  Radio and television stations are.  
The users (DJs, announcers, etc.) also require licences.  (Perhaps we need 
permits to carry concealed pens.)

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Cultural Violence
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:14:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.024121.23964@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:

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

>Possible Partial Explanations:

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

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

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


>I don't assert that any of these are correct explanations.
>I'm just pointing out that saying, " It didn't work in
>country X, therefore it won't work in country Y.", is a rather
>silly argument if left unqualified.

So us "It worked in country X, therefore it will work in country Y."
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Ban the Killer of 300,000
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:31:23 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.

You've missed the point.  In fact, you've missed so many I'm beginning to
think you're being deliberately obtuse.

"Shoot to stop" does not mean "shoot to wound." Neither does it mean
"shoot to kill." It means "Aim for center of mass (the largest, therefore
easiest, target) and keep firing until the attacker breaks off their
attack."

That last is the only criterion.  Note it says nothing about _why_ the
attacker halted their attack.  That is not the point.  The point is to
prevent death or grave bodily harm to yourself or another or to prevent
the commission of a heinous crime (rape, e.g.).  In short, to neutralize a
deadly threat as quickly and safely as possible.  If the attacker runs
away at the mere sight of your weapon, so much the better (and you _may
not_ shoot them in the back).  If you are forced to shoot and the attacker
dies as a result, too bad for them. (N.B.:  If _you_ would rather die than
risk killing another that is your decision and I have no quarrel with it.
You may not make that decision for me).

Anyone who thinks they can shoot more accurately than "center of mass" in
a high-stress, rough-and-tumble has probably gotten all their information
about firearms from fictional sources and never tried to shoot at a moving
target in their life.  I would advise them, and you, to go out and get
some real world training and experience before pontificating on a subject
you obviously know little about.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {rutgers|pyramid|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: eclipse@unixland.natick.ma.us (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: Response From Clinton E-mail
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix & Think_Tank BBS
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 20:04:33 GMT


  Sending out a copy of 'Putting People First' seems to be the standard 
response to any question asked of the Clinton campain.  When I asked about
Clinton's plans for a 100,000 officer National Police Corps, I was told that
he is not planning anysuch force and here's a copy of PFP.
  I found the quote in PFP about the National Police Corps and sent it back
with my orginal questions.  The answer took awhile to come back.

-- 
eclipse@unixland.natick.ma.us  a.k.a. Mark Urbin  These Opinions are mine.  
"It's been hard to argue against such great visuals"  Legislative
Director Jeff Muchnick, National Coalition to Ban Handguns on the LA riots.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Stop
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:28:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.133749.202076@uctvax.uct.ac.za> glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.221703.14008@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> 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".  
>
>The most effective way of putting a person down with a firearm with
>the minimum of lethal force (ie. a single shot) is to aim for the
>pelvic area.  A solid strike in this region *should* dump your
>assailant on his ass with a broken pelvis, yet not kill him.
>Unfortunately, it may not prevent him from using a firearm on you

In other words, a pelvis shot doesn't stop him, it merely puts him
down on the ground.  Thus, aiming for the pelvis is shoot to
maim/injure, not shoot to stop.

While the bad properties of shoot to maim are interesting, they
don't have anything to do with the question at hand, namely
"shoot to stop" vs "shoot to kill"

>if he survives, you could even face a cival lawsuit.

So?  You'll face that no matter what you intended, and whether
or not he lives.

>My conclusion, you should definitely shoot to kill.

My conclusion is that Gary doesn't understand the issue, so I'll ask
some relevant questions and we'll see how our token South African
compares to dumb americans.

1) An attack justifying the use of deadly force has stopped and
   Gary has his finger on the trigger; one pull and the attacker
   dies.  If he pulls the trigger, he's behaving as if the attack
   justifies shoot to kill, if he doesn't pull it, he's behaving
   as if the attack justifies shoot to stop and nothing more.  What
   does he think would be the appropriate action?

2) Gary witnesses an immediate threat of an attack that would justify
   the use of deadly force.  He has means available to kill the attacker,
   but that death would not stop the attack; the attacker would die
   later.  Does he think it is appropriate to use those means?  (No,
   he doesn't have other options; we're interested in the distinction
   between shoot to kill and shoot to stop.)

-andy

ps - I've heard that Black South Africans have a better chance getting
a concealed carry permit than Blacks in major American cities.  Perhaps
Gary can tell us the numbers for South Africa.
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:57:45 GMT

sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Kid) writes:
>.1251@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>>>|>	If gun laws make all the difference, why isn't Mexico 
>>>|>	safer than the U.S.?
>>>Because with guns freely circulating north of the border ther is little
>>>chance of gun control laws working?
>>Then please explain why Canada has much lower crime rates than the US?
>>By your reasoning, all those bad US guns ought to be as available to
>>the Canadians as they are to the Mexicans.

>Phil's argument is a very strong one because the security along the
>US-Mexican border is much tighter than that along the US-Canadian
>border.

I don't know about The Mexican border, but he is right about the 
Canadian one.   I live a few minutes from the Blaine WA/B.C. crossing,
the one with _the_ highest traffic, and I could smuggle all sorts
of stuff if I had half an inclination.   The only security is a "waiting
period" that would make Sarah Brady proud from all the cars backed up
to cross.   You drive up, they say are you smuggling stuff or some such,
you say "no" and they wave you through.

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: The AvtoMat Kalishnakov Model Number 47
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:00:20 GMT

In article <archer.208@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:
>
>>   The NRA seeks to keep the AK-47 assault rifle legal to the public.
>>That is enough for me to know they are misguided. 

 	You apparently know little enough about both arms and the NRA
	to show that you are the one who is misguided.  Try educating
	yourself before making such statements.  All you succeed in 
	doing is making yourself look ignorant and foolish, pardon me.
>
>1) The Avtomat Kalishnakov 47 is not "legal to the public."  The Kalishnakov 
>is a Class-III fully automatic assault weapon and has not been legal to sell 
>to private citizens in the United States since 1986, when Ronald Reagan 
						^^^^

	Full auto weapons have not been available to the general public
	since 1934.  Let us not give the gun grabbing ignorami any extra
	justification by allowing them to label us as fellow ignorami.

>>Noone needs an
>>automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense. 

	No one?  Well given your brilliant display of ignorance in your
	first statement, I would think that you are not the person I or
	any other intelligent and rational person would look to as a 
	source of reliable information on the topic.  And Mr. Archer
	clearly shows below that self defense ain't the only issue at
	stake.
>
>Perhaps.  Self defense is not the issue here.  The firearm you are concerned 
>about, is a semi-automatic rifle with a military appearance. It fires a 7.62 
>mm round, one per trigger pull.  This firearm has NO functional difference 
>from the average big game rifle.  With one exception:  the AK fires a 
>smaller, less lethal round.  A ban of this firearm would accomplish nothing.
>
	Educate yourself and THEN open your mouth.  At least then if you
	say something, you have some chance that it will be intelligent
	and worthy of being taken seriously.

	-AndyV.
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: ^42 The Car-Gun Analogy
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:30:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

In article <1992Jul29.203112.659@telesys.tnet.com> kreed@telesys.tnet.com (Kevin W. Reed) writes:
>langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston) writes:
>
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>>If one is willing to live with having to get
>>>>a driver's license in order to drive a car, then I don't see why we
>>>>can't have some system of gun permits. 
>>[snip]
>>>A purist would also point out that permits are for competency
>>>problems, not intentional misuse problems.
>
>Missed the original post....
>
>There is a big difference between a "Privilege" to drive a car, and
>the Constitutional Right as described in the Bill of Rights to own
>a gun.
>
>To drive a car in a State, you obtain permission to that privilege by
>taking a driving test (and/or exam).  The right to drive is a 
>privilege that the State allows you to have provided you abide by it's
>laws.  It is not guaranteed by the Constitution.
>
>The right to own and bear arms is.
>
>The drivers license vs gun registration, is not a good analogy.

We've simply lost the right to drive in the Supreme Court.
It IS, however there:

9th Amendment, 10th Amendment.

Those two most ignored Amendments PROVE decisively that the
Constitution was the sum total of the powers our government
was supposed to have.  That means much of what they are doing
to America today is a result of purposeful misinterpretation
and purposeful manipulation to find loopholes to do whatever
they damn well feel like.

We the People have been remiss in providing the checks that we
have at our disposal.

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:09:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.200555.12604@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>>
>>Good.  Now, everybody anywhere NEAR the Seattle area, grab hold of every non-
>>functional piece of junk you can find and sell it back to them to soak up 
>>their funds.
>
>Why would we want to do that?

As a friend of mine likes to say, "A fool and his money ought to be
parted."

>I have no problem with the basic concept in this case -- if a private
>organization wishes to freely purchase guns from willing sellers, and
>destroy them, that is entirely their affair.

Yes, it is entirely their affair; but there is a down side to it.
The whole point of "buy backs" is to create a media event to show the
public the evil of weapons and that they should be melted down.  That's
not something that is exactly good for the right to keep and bear arms.
But, it should be allowed.  Government's should not run them however.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Summary: "knocking over convenience stores" Okay, says egnilges
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:50:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.211928.23504@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> ...  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" 

  Any reference to "knocking over convenience stores" as "symbolic
speech" shows such confusion that even your preoccupation with
phallic issues barely explains it.

>got you all flustered and you focused on a
>tangential issue.  Please try to focus in the future.

  For your own good you would be advised not to carry out your
own symbolic speech aspirations by "knocking over convenience
stores" and to seek less dangerous and harmful areas in which to
act out your phallic phantasies.  I can see why you don't want me
to notice (let alone focus on) your claim that you could "knock 
over convenience stores" and be protected by the 1st Amendment. 

--henry schaffer
From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Dan Shea (from Machine Gun News) on the Rock Island Armory case
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:33:45 GMT
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

This is from "The Forms" column by Dan Shea of the 8/92 "Machine Gun News"

"There has been a lot of controversy recently about several court rulings
regarding NFA firearms.  I need to address these to put them into
perspective so that we can avoid some of the hysteria that accompanies
unfounded rumors.

First, the NFA has NOT been overturned.  In the US vs Rock Island Armory
case, the federal judge did reiterate that the National Firearms Act is a
revenue raising measure, and the only registration allowed is in
conjunction with raising revenue.  This was evidenced in the Sozinski case
of 1936 in the US Supreme Court.  In RIA, basically, the government was
told that if they are not going to collect taxes on firearms, then they
have nothing to say about them, as Congress has no authority to ban firearms
under the Second Amendment.  The government refused to overturn 922.0 and
go back to Pre-86 machine gun regulations.

The Reese case was appealed and plea bargained.

In the Dalton case, a lawyer was accused of illegally owning a machine gun
manufactured after 1986.  It was unregistered.  In the US District Court of
Appeals, 10th District, his conviction was overturned on the grounds that
the NFA is a revenue raising measure, and in 1986 the US government ceased
collecting tax on newly manufactured machine guns, therefore the US government
has no authority to regulate them.  To quote on Federal prosecutor, "The
government has been gutshot."

As of this writing, all of the honchos in BATF are cloistered and trying
to figure which way to go.  I have forwarded all of the questions people
have been asking to Wayne Miller, and when he responds I will pass the
answers on.

The NFA has not been overturned.

Most of us figure that it will take 4 - 8 years before we manage to get the
Government into court to try to overturn 922.0.  There are no guarantees,
so I can't give you advice on investment value of machine guns.  Suffice it
to say that a lot can happen in 4 years.  We might have riots all over and
the only people who are safe are those who are armed, and the people might
tell the anti-gunners in congress to take a hike - we could end up in Pre-86!

We could also have riots all over and lots of shooting leading to an anti-gun
hysteria in the media actually working like it did in 1968.  In which case
the mildest thing you will see is the transfer tax going to $1000 and
dealer fees being prohibitive.  Maybe a freeze on dealer licenses.  I don't
want to give these bozos any ideas, but you get the picture.

The best advice I could give is that if you want a machine gun, make sure
you are paying a fair market price, and get it, unless you are willing to
take a chance that in four years the law will get overturned and guns will
be cheapar.  Personally, I'd rather have the guns now, and not worry about
whether they'll be available later!
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: A Proposed FAQ For This Newsgroup...
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:04:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.203239.2222@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>
>Ah.  A good and bad FAQ.  Most excellent.
>
>>In those, each side can present their basic arguments and refute the
>>standard counterarguments.
>
>You can't "refute" the pro-gun arguments, since they're rock solid--unless
>you resort to lying.

I like the idea of the good FAQ and the bad FAQ.  Most people who get to read
both should have little difficulty determining which is which.

Jens
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:18:47 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1992Jul30.192122.3305@ms.uky.edu> uk09365@nx06.mik.uky.edu
(robert i kesten) writes:
>> The Second Amendment has been reviewed by linguistics experts, who have
>> decided that it DOES give ordinary people the right to keep/bear arms;
>> that the militia clause provides one reason why that right is important.
>> 
>	To be fair, the Second Amendment has also been reviewed
>	by at least one Journalism professor (admittedly not
>	at all the same thing as a linguist) who has written
>	that it does NOT protect an individual RTKABA from
>	infringement.

One of my favorite sig files contains a quote from Nietzsche that says:
"There are no facts, only interpretations".  I think that it is certainly
too general to be accurate:  after all, you can say with certainty that
there were no humans on Venus last week.  However, when it comes to
determining the meaning of a sentence (e.g., the Second Amendment),
I don't think there CAN be one, correct meaning.  It's pretty likely that
a neutral or pro-RKBA person would say that it gives individuals RKBA;
some neutral observers and anti-RKBA would say that it is a collective
right.

>(I personally disagree with this assessment, but it is
> a published alternative.)
>
>	I could also point out that since Levinson's 
>	"Embarassing Second Amendment" came out in 1989
>	there have been several other legal scholars
>	who have written journal articles rejecting the
>	individual RTKABA thesis and restating the
>	collective rights justification.

Same here!  Again, unlike the algebraic equation 5 = 3 + x which has
the solution x = 2, the Second Amendment's interpretation will ALWAYS
be a matter of opinion.  You and I believe that it gives us RKBA; an
anti-gun person would say the opposite, due to his political agenda.

>p.s. After scanning the legal journal index (info/legaltrac)
>for about an hour and a half (waiting for a friend who never
>showed up) yesterday; I am thinking that we (pro-RKBA) need
>to be as or more worried about the legal elites than the
>medical elites.

I wonder what we can guess about motivation of anti-gun lawyers and
doctors.  Is it because they don't want ordinary people to have guns,
i.e., a classist motivation?  I've read that, in NYC, only the well-
connected can own and carry guns:  the ordinary schmoes are turned
down.  Diane Feinstein's was the only Concealed Carry permit issued
in 1980, in San Francisco.

Any ideas?

    don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns