HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Not only buy the gun, but learn to use it safely and responsibly.
Join the NRA and make your voice heard.  

I wish I were jesting when I say, 'When they come to take your gun(s)
away, you will say, "Where was the NRA?"  We of the NRA will say,
"Where were you?"'
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: brad@slammer.UUCP (Brad Isley)
Subject: Re: 43 Times more likely?
Organization: Just me & my computers
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:55:21 GMT

In article <C14sI1.636@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>
>There is no denying that merely challenging with a gun
>will reduce violence in some cases. But anecdotal evidence
>does not convince me. Logic does. It follows that if
>you let everyone in a society have free access to guns there
>will be a big problem, unless the people are educated, there
>are no major economic divisions and the majority of people hold
>sound moral vales. Unfortunately there are few places in the world
>where this is the case. And if there were such a place, the
>people would not need guns or want them.

I have to disagree here.  This might just be true, for a short time-
at least until the hot-tempered folk figure out that the nice guys
will shoot back.  Just how long do you think it would take all the
violent types to figure out the all of the sudden their prey shoots
back?  Nothing scares a violent offender more than a victim with a gun.
Let everyone get firearms instructions and carry guns.  After a few
weeks, all the crooks will be toasted by the would-be victims, I say.
Sure, we'll loose a few nice folks, but that happens too often already.
So, in that respect, your presumption about escalating violence is true.
Education is important.  Otherwise we'll have idiots shooting themselves.

"An armed society is a polite society",  RAH.

Disagree if you like.
-- 
brad@slammer.atl.ga.us   (Brad Isley)
+1 404 841-5018 Work			 Nopottopeein: "Howzit Goink?"
+1 404 925-9663 Home			  The gang: "Fine, just fine."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: 1.2 Million Handgun Defenses per year
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<1993Jan12.182846.25019@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
	<LAMBERT.93Jan21014949@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1993Jan21.020237.1774@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:37:11 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 02:02:37 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) said:

> In article <LAMBERT.93Jan21014949@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>> Is this the Tim Lambert who claims "The Kennesaw law had no effect"
>>> using a study that did not even adjust for population changes?

>>Yes, the study found no effect on the number of burglaries.  If there
>>was an effect on the population adjusted rate which was masked by an
>>increase in population, then such an increase would have to occur all
>>at once between 81 and 82, which is pretty unlikely.

> This isn't true at all: A gradual change in population could
> easily mask a sudden change in the crime rate, especially since
> we are looking at a ten-year long interval.

This depends on the analysis method used - if you just look at mean
rates before and after, this could be true, but not likely in
interrupted time series analysis.

>>...I have posted
>>the population adjusted rates: can you see any effect?

> I haven't seen this, but from your eariler data:

Yes you have!  You took my population adjusted rates and then adjusted
them for population growth AGAIN.

> Year	Burglaries
> 1976	40		
> 1977	20		
> 1978	20		
> 1979	30		
> 1980	25		
> 1981	40		
> 1982	25		
> 1983	25		
> 1984	20		
> 1985	20		
> 1986	40		

These have already been adjusted for population growth.

Tim
From: hobbes@spacemanspiff.den.mmc.com (Stephen Camp)
Subject: Re: Re: Fort Collins Gun Ban!!  Jan. 19
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group (Denver, CO, USA)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:48:35 GMT

In article <8110321@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post) writes:

[snip]


>
>My purpose was to keep it local, until such time as the issue attained some
>national interest, which it didn't.
>
>So now I have two questions:
>
>1)  Should strictly local issues regarding firearms stay local though local
>distribution and kept out of rec.guns and talk.politics.guns?
>

[snip]

>
>David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post


When I post an article using 'Pnews', it asks me for distribution: world,
na (north america), usa, co (state of colorado), denver, etc.

wouldn't this allow us to still post relevant information to t.p.g. regarding
local issues?  I have a hunch that not everyone that reads t.p.g. in
Colorado is on the 'shooters email list'...

-- 

Steve Camp
(303)971-4379
hobbes@spacemanspiff.den.mmc.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Pistol Permit in Cambridge, Part II
Date: 27 Jan 93 08:08:25 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1993Jan26.020530.10196@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:

>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny):

>>Please advise me on the process of appealing a denial of the above, for
>>the (spurious) reason of failure to provide requested documentation.

>What required documentation do they claim you denied them?

No idea.

>JD

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: eclipse@world.std.com (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Right restricted
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:39:52 GMT


  I just heard some Democratic senator on CNN Headline News.  He said, 
"A right restricted is not a right, it's an illusion."  I didn't catch his 
name.  Can someone supply it?  The senator was talking about abortion rights.
I would like to find out his stand on RKBA and if needed, see if his statement
is true for all cases of Constitutional rights or just the one he supports.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Urbin -- eclipse@world.std.com -- These opinions are mine.
It was a typical net.exercise -- a screaming mob pounding on a greasy spot 
on the pavement, where used to lie the carcass of a dead horse.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: On the eve of Bill's (not so) Excellent Adventure
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 17:09:38 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>In article <-m_s3qp@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>As for the change of us stopping government corruption today vs yesterday,
>>a dead corrupt politician is as dead today as he was yesterday.  Consider
>>the upheval after kennedy.  It is always a toss of the dice where 
>>things will point afterward but I'm about ready to take a chance.

>Yeah, good thing we got that evil John Kennedy out of the way.

Yeah, got his brother too.  Too bad we're one bullet short of a solution 
to the kennedy problem.

>What?  He was an NRA member?  Ooops...

yep and I'm a member of HCI.  If you think I am a member because I support
what they do, you are a fool.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bazooka for sale!
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:55:21 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <1k6netINNr6q@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>Suzanne Gratia saw no obvious "need" to carry her handgun into Luby's 
>Cafeteria.  She was not in a high-crime area.  But most of all it was 
>illegal, so against her better judgement, she left it home.  As a result, 
>both her parents plus a score of other people died at the hands of the 
>only armed man in the cafeteria, a psycho named George Hennard.

Worse...

It was IN THE CAR.  Less than 150' away, and useless.  

Thank you, TX legislature.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:05:44 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1993Jan20.040118.10573@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <9301171814.46@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan16.021223.2697@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>In article <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>And what about people with felony records?
>>>
>>>What about them?  While it is probably true that letting honest people
>>>have guns means that criminals will have them too, gun control works
>>>only if denying guns to the law-abiding denies them to criminals as well.
>>
>>If we assume that the Mass gun regulations, on paper, aren't all that
>>unreasonable,
>
>Why should we assume that?  They don't have any benefits, so we don't
>even have to look at the costs to figure out that they're a bad idea.
>
>>then the real problem is that the state must take the
>>administration of gun permits out of the hands of the local police,
>>and set up an easily accessable state agency to administer the paper
>>work and records investigations.  The problem is convincing people
>>who could care less to pay more taxes to set up another state agency.
>
>Since there's no benefit to involving the state....

I'm just saying that it would be an easy process if the bias of local
police chiefs was taken out of the equation, and the state ran the process
by the numbers.

>>You're right.  Aside from a quick go/nogo records check there probably
>>isn't any more that can be done.
>
>Apart from the fact that there isn't a particularly good crime-control
>argument even for that, I wonder why Kelly continues to argue for MA's
>system, which is far more.  (I'll assume that MA does accurate records
>checks, which is almost certainly wrong, but ....)

You seem to be the only person here who doesn't seem to think that there
should be a quick check system in gun stores to eliminate criminals at
the point of sale.

With your strong ideals, why do you continue to live in a state that only
gives CCW "to the very rich and well connected"?

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Text: New Brady Bill
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:40:54 GMT

miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:

>>            "(II) the transferor has received notice from the chief 
>>        law enforcement officer that the officer has no information 
>>        indicating that receipt or possession of the handgun by the 
>>        transferee would violate Federal, State, or local law; 

>     This is the same requirement almost word for word as it appears on
>     Form 4 (for class III transfers). Here in Lexington Ky, the Chief
>     simply refuses to sign. The BATF blesses this position.
>     So, looks like now the Chief will be able to "not sign" for
>     handguns as well. Oh well, maybe the next crazy will open up at the


I just read it.  It look the opposite of what you say:

The transfer goes through in 7 days unless the dealer
is notified prior to that by LE.

This particular mutation doesn't look as bad as I thought it
would.   It looks like it mandates no wait if you have a state
"I'm not a felon" card like a FOID or a CCW, and no wait if the
seller gets "felony record absent" confirmation from from the 
backround check system that is pending from the DOJ.   They
should ammend it to accept any other check system, such as
the various instant ones state LE have.    

I'm not going to be happy about it.  But if it passes, it won't
be the end of the world.   I see it more as a big shot in the
arm for the people who want to make us like Canada.

Jim Del Vecchio
From: starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton's policies
Date: 24 Jan 93 03:47:12 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <viking.727337918@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>	Wouldn't it be great for NRA-ILA to create a new bill, based
>upon reasonable controls we would like to see (instant background

Just a reminder for NRA members that NRA-ILA has sent out a request for
donations along with an entry to a contest where the grand prize is
a collection of guns.  Didn't they ask last month for money and I sent
some in?  They did and on the first I will send in more.  I urge all
NRA members to donate even if it is only five bucks.  The fight with
Bill and Hillery may be a big one.  I expect this year I will be asked
over and over to give, and give I will some times more and some times
less.  Come on Gentlemen and Gentlewomen make your donation to the cause.

starbuck

PS  I don't  own a gun nor have I ever.  I most likely would have stayed
that way but I believe in the right to keep and bare arms.  But because
of the attack by the left on our rights I will own several firearms as
soon as I finish a firearms course at a local range.  
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Usefulness of weapons (was Re: Galen Disarms)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:43:12 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1993Jan20.175450.15631@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>I find it ironic that in Somalia US armed forces are removing guns
>from the population so as to promote stability, safety, and order,
>while in the US gun advocates are using the same line to justify
>owning whatever weapons they wish.

Ray,

watch Somalia after the foreign troops pull out.

Notice a rise in violence...this time, not only against those who
were unarmed before the Marines/Legion arrived, but those who were disarmed
by the Marines/Legion.

If anyone were to pay attention to who was shooting and being shot before
foreign intervention in Somalia, I bet they'd see that most, if not all, of
the shooting was being done by various groups of thugs shooting at and being
shot by other groups of thugs.

Not unlike most the of the drug-related violence back here at home.

Disarming of Somalis by the foreign troops will be just as effective in
promoting stability, safety, and order as has been the war on drugs and
guns in the U.S.

Not that many in the media will notice, or comment on, the difference between
criminal and legitimate use of firearms.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton as the new Thomas Jefferson
Date: 25 Jan 1993 01:28:01 GMT
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Distribution: talk
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com

In article <GOOGS.93Jan18171637@pravda.webo.dg.com> googs@pravda.webo.dg.com  
(Joe Gugliemino) writes:
> 
> This past week I've seen and heard a lot about the Clinton inauguration.
> Most of it focuses on his symbolic bus trip from Monticello and how he
> wants to be a populist president like Thomas Jefferson.  Maybe somebody
> should point out how widely his views on guns differs with that of our
> 3rd president.  
[...]
>                              Later,
> 
>                              Joe Gugliemino
> 
> (new address)
>        |
>        V
> googs@pravda.webo.dg.com             Voice: (508) 870-6318
> Joe_Gugliemino@dg.com                      Phone messages routinely routed
> Data General Corp., Westboro, Ma.             to the nearest black hole...

I hope you noticed the resounding LACK of enthusium from Virginians in this sad  
affair.  Jefferson is said to be spinning at super sonic speeds at the moment.

I live within 'shooting' distance of Jefferson's boyhood home.  I know a lot  
about Jefferson, and Mr. Clinton, you're no Thomas Jefferson!

Jim
--
Jim De Arras            | The opinions expressed herein are
Hand Held Products, Inc.| not necessarily those of Hand 
804.784.3090 voice      | Held Products, Inc., and may not 
804.784.3147 FAX        | even be mine. Use at your own risk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Law, inalienable Rights, and the Legitimate Use of Force
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:37:19 GMT

In article <PA142548.847.727646205@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>**!!! Careful editing the attribution line there sport!  I don't advocate 
>this position !!**

I'm sorry: I'm in the habit of deleting all but the most revent attribution
line, and letting markers such as a double ">" indicate that earlier
remarks by other posters. If that's confusing, please let me know.

>That was the solution presented to me, and works for practical purposes.  He 
>must stay, leave the TV, or initiate violence.  At that point you may be 
>morally able to use force.  But you are still defending life, not property, 
>at that point.

In effect, I'm defending both. The hypothetical reaction is intended
to force the attacker to choose between escalation (which justifies
self-defence) and leaving without my property. Essentially, I'm
in favor of reacting in proportion to the attacker's acts, and
letting him decide if it is worth being shot. 

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: A well-armed (and well-fed) society
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: talk
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:21:50 GMT

<In article <NELSON.93Jan21232831@cheetah.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
<We've often heard the assertion ``A well-armed society is a polite society.''

	Certainly it has been shown true in some small
	circumstances.

<Well, I would add the clause ``A well-armed AND WELL-FED society ...'', after
<viewing what the wide distribution of guns has done to Somalia.

	Strawman. 
	If the distribution of firearms were truly wide in
	Somalia, gangs of thugs would not be able to steal
	the entire harvest of a village.

	If everyone in Somalia was armed, thugs would find
	it much more difficult to steal food from women
	and children.

	Nelson will no doubt be pleased to learn that the US
	military has been confiscating firearms in the towns.

	He may be dismayed to learn that former Ethiopian Army
	officers have, according to UN reports, set up gun-	
	running networks into Somalia.

<russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> Businesses persuade; Governments force.

	Not exactly a vote of confidence for more government....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: The Cat Factory
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:43:07 GMT

In article <t#d3n5f@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

}That the "and locked" part of a Condition One carry is superfluous?

This terminology refers to pistols of the M1911 design.  Note that 1911
refers to the year this design was adopted -- hardly a modern firearm.
Never the less, it entails three separate mechanical safeties and is often
carried in a holster with a safety/retaining strap between the hammer and
firing pin.

Condition One ("cocked and locked") carry still gives me the willies.  I
wouldn't own one.  I would certainly never substitute reliance on even
multiply redundant safeties for following the rules of safe gun handling.

Mechanical safeties are an _adjunct_ to proper gun handling, never a
substitute for it.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                "If you can't stand solitude,
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483  perhaps others find you boring
Santa Monica, CA  90405                        as well."  -- Mark Twain
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Virginia's proposed gun-a-month law
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:13:05 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


Q: "Why do you need more than one gun a month?"

A: "Why do you need more than one abortion a year?"

It's funny that they same people screaming for abortion rights (not
mentioned in the constitution) are also screaming for gun control
(forbidden by 2nd Amendment).

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ctdonath@mothra.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
In-reply-to: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu's message of Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:47:20 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University
	<1993Jan20.205728.18118@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
	<1993Jan20.235312.18675@cbnews.cb.att.com>
	<1993Jan21.015406.23461@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
	<1993Jan21.154720.4900@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 12:54:06 EST


   >Sorry.  I thought philosophy was talking about what _ought_ to be, not
   >what _is_ or _will be_.  Anarchy _ought_ to work.  There _ought_ be no
   >murder.  People _ought_ to be able to get along without government.

In theory, almost every political system should work: anarchy, democracy,
communism, socialism, fascism, tribes, etc. That's why each theory has
followers.

The problem is that there will _always_ be someone who wants to manipulate
the system for their own benefit, thus destroying the essence of the system.

In anarchy, someone will want to tell other people what to do.
In communism and socialsim, someone will discover that they don't have to
work to have basic needs met.
In democracy, someone will discover that mobs can be talked into supporting
just about anything.
And so on.

When considering what _ought_ to be, don't let those ideas cloud the fact
that implementation in the real world had better consider the nature of
reality.

I _ought_ to be able to walk thru the slums at night without getting mugged.
It would be really stupid to actually try it.

--
______________/ ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu \______________________________
Most people agree that the government is largely sluggish and ineffective.
Then why do most people demand that it do everything for them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------