HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:30:18 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Aug27012957@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
>Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
>Date: 27 Aug 92 01:29:57
>Executive summary:
>
>Bill Gray said:
>(1) You want to ban all guns.
>(2) A gun is the most effective defence against rape.
>(3) Therefore you require woman to passively acquiesce to rape.
>(4) Therefore you are telling them to "lean back and enjoy it".
>
>I reply:
>(1) is false.
No it is not.  You have advoacted blanket gun bans on several occasions.

>There is no evidence for (2).
Sure there is.  Check the FBI uniform crime report for 1990 (lastest 
available to me).  Of those methods used when assaulted, self-defense with a 
firearms is the most effective.

>Even if (1) and (2) were true (3) does not follow. (Since "resist with
>gun" and "passively acquiesce" are not the only possibilites.)
>Even if, in a fit of insanity we concluded (3), (4) does not follow.
>(Since "passively acquiesce" does not imply "enjoyment".)

You are correct here.  The conclusion does not even remotely follow.

[snip]

>Sharing a continent with a person does not imply that I also share the
>same opinions.  I have never posted anything to this
>newsgroup advocating the banning of ANY sort of gun in my country or
>elsewhere.  My contributions to this newsgroup have been more
>concerned with investigating and refuting claims such as "one
>million crimes are stopped each year with guns", 
This is an estimate, but a good one.  Roughly a half-million can be 
documented.  (Kleck)

>"gun training caused
>rapes to plummet in Orlando", 
It did.

>"Kennesaw burglaries fell dramatically
>after gun ownership was made compulsory", 
It wasn't.

>"medical data shows that a
>gun is no more deadly than a knife", etc etc.
That is skewed.  The initial survival rates for firearm-related wounds are 
lower than for knives, but the "slow-kill" rate for knives is higher.

>
>You may consider this as helpful to gun banners. Tough.  I don't believe
>you should base your case  on falsehoods.
We don't.
>
>Furthermore, I never read anything from any poster in Australia
>advocating the banning of ALL guns.
No, just the particular subset of guns that that particular Australian found 
esthetically offensive.  Taken as a group, they overlap and are percived as 
support for a blanket gun-ban downunder.

[snip]

>statement.  If you try to attribute it to your opponent, this is an
>obvious blatant smear attempt, the sort of desperate tactic tried by
>someone on the losing end of an argument.  Usually the next step is to
Not at all.  Smears are effective at any time.  Not right, but effective.

>call them a Nazi.  It's the sort of thing I've come to expect from
>Terminator/Rifleman who in the past has called me stupid, a communist,
>and a hoplophobe.  
       ^^^^^^^^^^  Was 'dat?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Subject: Re: Canadian NFA membership
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:24:32 GMT

In <1992Aug26.195303.25147@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:

> _____
>|  / /|
>|N/F/A|   	National Firearms Association 
> \ / / 
>  \_/           
>     
>	
>Mr. D.A. Tomlinson
>National President
>Headquarters:
>Box 1779, Edmonton, AB	Bus: (403)439-1394
>T5J 2P1  Canada		Fax: (403)439-4091

>Major R.A. Laycock
>Administrator and Editor
>Box 4384, Station C
>Calgary, Alberta, Canada  T2T 5N2
>Tel: (403) 640-1110
>Fax: (403) 640-1144

>Yearly Membership includes

>$2,000,000 liability insurance for and additional $4.50 per year
>(Runs from postmark date to 01 Dec 1992)
>Subscription to Canadian Hunting and Shooting Magazine (free)
>Point Blank monthly newsletter.

>Regular Membership  $25 
>Age 65 or older     $12
>Family membership   $40
>Business membership $50
>Club fee	    $40 or $1 per member which ever is larger.

*******
US members are welcome, for US members, fees are in US funds
which takes care of higher postage costs.
*******

>			Membership Application
>			-----------------------

>Name  _________________________________________ Donation ($_____)
>Address _______________________________________ No. of Members: ____
>Town ____________________ Province ____________ Postal Code: _________
>Telephone(____)_________
>65+$12(____) Regular $25(___)  Family $40 (____) Business $50 (_____)
>Club Fee $40 or 1$ per member: which ever is larger	  ($_______) 
>For NFA Liability Insurance  ADD $4.50 per member covered ($_______)
>						TOTAL:    ($_____)
				 Fees in CDN for Canadian members,
			 	 US funds for American members.
>Send application to NFA, Box 4384, Station C, Calgary, Alberta  T2T 5N2




>-- 
>Greg Booth BSc                        | Diligentia-Vis-Celeritas
>BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS    |  	Incolumitas
>Motorola Mobile Data Division         | 
>booth@mdd.comm.mot.com cgb003@email.comm.mot.com
-- 
Greg Booth BSc                        | Diligentia-Vis-Celeritas
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS    |  	Incolumitas
Motorola Mobile Data Division         | 
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com cgb003@email.comm.mot.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: TV, Violence, The Commish
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:45:00 GMT

pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

>Hey, I got a GREAT idea!  You folks who want to stop the violence on
>our streets?  Make the TV, and movie industry stop portraying the misuse
>of firearms, and violence in general, and instead glorify the peacemaker
>(not a sheepish peace-at-any-price pacifist, but one who defuses situations
>via means other than blowing them away or beating them into a pulp).
>When a story line needs guns involved, glorify the trained, and responsible
>use.  Make the toad who pulls the gun on every trivial excuse look like
>the idiot he/she is.  Just like I recall (rare) shows stressing the
>dedication and training of martial arts, how about stories stressing
>the proper training and concentration in the use of guns?  How about
>shows showing shooting matches like they show golf matches?  Or does
>all this make too much sense?

 Actually there is ONE show like this on TV.  It's called _THE_COMMISH_.
 I think it's on ABC (?).  There was even a episode where the Commish,
 (Commisioner of a PD BTW), was teaching his ~12 year old son safe gun/
 shooting methods.  In reality, ABC should NOT recieve the credit for
 this show. The creator/producer Stephen Canall (sp) (A-Team fame) ha
 become a very strong PRO-RKBA, showing firearms in a good, or at least 
 realistic image, type of producer.  I believe he caught TONS of shit from 
 people about the way guns were portrayed in _THE_A_TEAM_, so he went out 
 and learned about real guns.  He went from producing shows with the NEVER_
 RUN_OUT_OF_BULLETS_MACHINE_GUNS_SPRAYING_1000S_OF_ROUNDS to a far more
 positive image of firearms.  Yes guns are still used to commit crimes
 on some of the shows, but the guns are neither glorified, or condemmed.

 I addition to the "teaching the son to shoot" episode, there was one
 where they caught a "hunter" who had violated several laws while "getting
 his deer". (Don't remember the exact details). I was waiting for the
 typical anti-hunting/anti-gun speeches, and instead got a speech in
 support of hunters who follow the rules. It ended with a line, "Hunters
 follow the rules. Your not a hunter, your a poacher".  

 It may not be perfect in its' portrayal of fireams, but it's better
 than 99% of the other show.  And as you mentioned, violence is RARELY
 used to resolve the issue and get the bad guy.  If _TJ_Hooker_ really 
 shot as many people as was portrayed in that show, LA would have zero
 population growth.

                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
                                NRA, ILA, CFC

------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: Colorado Does Its Part For Firearms Last Night!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Distribution: usa
Date: 26 Aug 1992 12:32 EST  

bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes...
>gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray) writes:
>>Oh, well.  Sensible Minnesotans (both of us! :-)  are grateful that other
>>states are selecting better Senators than our prize, Paul (the Dweeb)
>>Wellstone.  :-(
> 
>Sigh, not always, consider if you were from Ohio and had to
>admit to having Howie Metzenbum & John "I fried my brains out
>in geosynchronous orbit" Glenn as your Senators. My only
>consolation is thinking of the embarrassment some folks
>in Mass. must feel..... :-( :-( :-( :-(

How do you think that we near Cleveland feel with Ed Feighan and Mary Rose
Oakar :-( **10
From: rjl@GANDALF.SSW.COM (Robert J Leone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:17:57 GMT

>Oh yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.  In order to send Bush a message,
>vote for Marrou so that it's a sure thing for Clinton who you KNOW is gonna
>screw you!  At least with Bush as president we have a chance.

In the majority of states, it's not going to be a tight race. Well ahead
of election day, we're going to have a good idea who is going to win
our home state's electoral votes. In such a case, it is unlikely to make
a damned bit of difference to the final result if even a million people
vote for Marrou. But it _will_ make the powers-that-be sit up and take
notice.

The person who truly wastes his/her vote is the person who votes for
the lesser of two evils, not truly believing in either, rather than
voting the way he/she really thinks.

Bob Leone (leone@gandalf.ssw.com)
(The opinions expressed are my own.)
 
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason
    for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
    resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
           - Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pat@fitz.uucp (Patrick Fitzgerald)
Subject: little murders, inane suggestions
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: talk
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:38:08 GMT


Any typos are mine.

[copied without permissoin from "The Huntsville Times", Aug 28, 1992]
 
	       'LITTLE MURDERS' ARE KILLING LOS ANGELES
			  by Richard ["Police State"] Reeves
 
Los Angeles --- "The toll this weekend in Los Angeles was 22 killed;
that's one higher than Bosnia," said the voice on the radio as Los
Angeles went to work last Morning.  It was Michael Jackson, a popular
call-in show host here --- and he was wrong about the number.
 
By the end of the day, police concluded there were actually 28 men,
women and children murdered in Los Angeles County between 6 p.m.,
Friday, Aug. 21, and 6 a.m., Monday, Aug. 24
 
[deleted: description of several murders]
 
DRACONIAN MEASURES
 
Michael Jackson called me (and a number of other people) that day,
last Monday, and asked what we would do about all this.  I answered:
 
(1) Repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution, because it is
now obviously insanity to give all Americans the right to bear arms;
 
(2) Establish a federal agency to regulate handguns as the Food
and Drug Administration regulates pharmaceuticals --- to register and
trace domestically manufactured and imported weapons and ammunition;
 
(3) Review all existing handgun licenses and licensees, with the
idea of revoking most of them;
 
(4) Declare an amnesty period in which handguns could be turned in to
recycling stations without penalties of questions;
 
(5) Use emergency police powers (and military powers, if necessary) to
sweep neighborhoods for illegal weapons;
 
(6) Establish an automatic 10-year sentence without parole for
illegal-weapon-possession convictions.
 
Draconian?
 
Really?  And what do you call it when Americans have to risk their
lives to pull up at a stop sign or take the kids out for hamburgers?
 
Footnote: Syndicated columnist Richard Reeves writes on national and
international affairs.

--
   ______   |o| Patrick Fitzgerald     |o| Mailstop GD3002
  / ___  )  |o| pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com  |o| Huntsville, AL 35894-0001
 / __)/ /__ |o| Sr. Software Analyst,  |o| VOICE: (205) 730-3741
(_/it(_____)|o| Intergraph Corporation |o| FAX:   (205) 730-3300

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: American Bar Association on Gun Control
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 22:21:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

From The Wall Street Journal, 9/2/92, p. A10 (without permission) --
in an editorial panning an ABA questionnaire sent to Bush and Clinton:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

        Instead the ABA deplores the U.S. murder rate and
        asserts, "Most experts point to the lack of gun control
        as a principal cause.  What steps would you favor to
        regulate guns most commonly used in violent crimes?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that they didn't ask what The Candidates thought was the cause
of the U.S. murder rate, or what they might propose as a solution ...
--------
"Try ABA members in your experiments -- for the things rats won't do."
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 30 Aug 1992 00:08:41 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: whirlwind.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug29.174944.20114@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>Remember, out of every 100 guns in the US, one or two are owned/used
>by criminals.  Getting rid of 90 of those guns is unlikely to provide
>any benefit, because it will get rid of the wrong guns.  That's why
>this approach to gun control has NEVER worked in the US or anywhere
>else.

I thought the number was under 1% of all guns. But just for the record,
it should be possible to estimate the maximum amount of gun running
needed to satisfy the current black market:

If we accept 2% as a maximum for guns in circulation, this would
give roughly 4 million guns. Assuming a gun will remain useable for
20 years (this would assume poor maintaince: A well maintianed gun
would probably last much longer), there would be a criminal demand
for 200,000 guns per year. A pistol weights about two pounds, so this
is 200 tons of firearms to smuggle into the country (only a few dozen
truck loads.) I seem to recall that drug smuggling runs into the tens
of thousands of tons each year.

						  Frank Crary
						  CU Boulder

(By the way, does anyone know how to get usenet access here at Boulder?
My new account is on a machine that doesn't seem to connect, and remote
logins to my old Berkeley account are getting to be a pain...)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: n
Organization: The Cat Factory
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:21:25 GMT

In article <71614@apple.Apple.COM> vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss) writes:

}So I'm to conclude that *if* guns were unavailable, that criminals
}would switch to other lethal means (knives, poisons, explosives, pick
}one) and overall f/i rates would remain the same?  Doesn't it have
}something to do with how *easy* it is pull a trigger from relativly far
}away?

Do you think you can ban _all_ missile weapons?

Bows, crossbows, slings, slingshots, blow guns, throwing knives, _rocks_
...

With simple hand tools and common materials I can build a crossbow that
will penetrate police body armor like butter. (The ancient Chinese even
invented a magazine-fed crossbow).

I can make a blow gun from common plumbing supplies.  Put an electric air
compressor behind it and it'll drive paper darts through solid oak.

David took out Goliath with a simple sling.

A crude molotov cocktail is just a bottle of gasoline topped with a rag.
(More sophisticated ones mix in soap for a nice, sticky consistency).

Ever heard of a funnelator?  Most people use them with water balloons, but
it could throw said molotov cocktail several blocks with surprising
accuracy.

BTW, the BATF has a _lot_ of home made, hand made guns in their
collection.


The universe is a dangerous place.  Better learn to live with it.

[Ok.  So I took a break.  Just don't expect much out of me for a while. (-: ]

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
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20414 soc.culture.french:6382
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.french
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:21:45 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <la65itINNb1k@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> claude@isle.Eng.Sun.COM (Claude Manoit) writes:
>To which extent can a local/county/state gun-control law be enforced (by 
>that I mean preventing the law from being broken) in United States since 
>it is so easy to go from one locality/county/state to the other and carry
>weapons around? For example how efficient is a law in NY city stricter 
>than say NY state? (the exemple is not supposed to be correct).

To purchase a firearm in the United States, one must fill out a record
of sale, which includes your home address and a description. You must
show photographic identification (such as a driver's license) to 
verify your name, address, etc. So the gun dealer wil know where you
are from. Further, he is required to follow the laws of your home
state also (if you are from a different state.) For example, if
a resident of California were to buy a gun here in Colorado, the 
dealer would have to submit background check forms to the California
Department of Justice and wait 15 days before letting the buyer have the gun.

Admittidly, it is possible to forge a driver's license, or to find a
local willing to buy a gun for you. However, this takes a fair amount
of effort and guns are not available in quantity this way. The effort
is comparable to other illegal sources: Sumggling from outside the
United States, theft or illegal manufacture.

					Frank Crary
					CU Boulder
					fcrary@pprince.Colorado.EDU
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:30:32 GMT
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <1992Aug27.221551.6303@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.175546.13885@SSD.intel.com>, hays@ssd.intel.com
>(Kirk Hays) writes:
>
>> Still wrong - the government has neither "intrinsic rights", nor "ceded rights",
>> but "granted powers."
>
>Absolutely correct!
>
>
>> |> You don't have the right to interpret the law, 
>> |> although you are certainly entitled to your opinion of what it means.  The
>
>But, the minute you sit on a Jury, and refuse to enforce a law based
>on your *opinion* that the law is wrong, you have just *made law*.
>(precedent plays an important role in court).

	Un fortunately judges have set verdicts aside in the past.  I must
	shamefully admit that I do not know under what, if any, circumstances
	that they are permitted to do this.  I would hope that they could not
	legitimately set aside a not guilty verdict or some other form of
	nullification.  Any of you guys know anything about this?
>
>And thus, Juries have the power to interpret the Constitution (and the power
>to refuse to enforce any law they find offensive).

	On paper, yes, but I'm not so sure that your stomping into court and
	informing the jury of their right to nullify a law that they find
	disagreeable would not land you in the slammer on some horse shit
	charge like contempt or what have you and perhaps find you with a
	mis-trial in your lap.

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Aug26.233906.11723@mtu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:20:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.233906.11723@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles
Scripter) writes:

   Only if they can likewise deprive someone of their life, or liberty
   by mere passage of a law.  I think "due process" here, means "trial
   by jury".  Unless, of course, they wish to take our firearms for
   "public use", and pay the market price for them.

No.  Due process means whatever the state says is due process.  In
general, this means a court order, a warrent, or probable cause
immediately witnessed by the arresting officer.  

   But there's also that little issue of the 2nd Amendment....

I hope.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: GlaZer vs. Glaser
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:08:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.drugs
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <5075@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.214053.23874@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church) writes:
>>: In article <1992Aug19.213129.27633@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>>: 
>>: >If there is any drug which (1) stops nearly instantly, (2) is
>>: >effective in the _same_ dosage on people of widely different
>>: >body mass, (3) causes no serious or lethal damage to the target,
>>: >and (4) is reliable, we might be able to construct such a device.
>>: >But I am unaware of any drug which meets those parameters.
>>: 
>>: It's called a nine-millimeter with Glazers. Ok, 3 out of 4.
>>
>>Sorry, Bob. Even the Glazer slug is not reliable. It works better
>>than hard ball, and does not penetrate walls as bad - but that is
>>all.
> Don't mean this as a flame of your ammo choice, Bob, but I can do
> without the nine MikeMike.  Would someone pass the forty-five?
> 
> Minor Nit(tm): The name is pronounced "gla-zer," but I've never seen it
> spelled anything but "Glaser."  Might be wrong, but thought I'd mention
> it. 

Whadda ya mean ya c'n do wit'out a 9mil.????
('e don' kno' nuttin' Bob)

But seriously folks: My personal choice would be a Magsafe load (any one will
do).Now I hope *everyone* knows what a Magsafe load is, *but* just to be sure
Magsafe loadings are similar to Glaser's in that they consist of a jacketed
core of shot (but #8/#6/#4 & #2 vs. #12 in the Glaser) bonded in an epoxy
resin.Their advantages over Glaser's is that the larger shot penetrates better,
the resin prevents shallow wounding and aids penetration & improves accuracy.

I know you consider them expensive, but over here standard local production FMJ
 rounds set you back R1-00 a shot (read $1-00 a shot), speciality ammo ie. 
silvertips are R2-70 a shot and Hydrashoks over R3-00 each!!!!

In South Africa a copy of the Glaser is produced, it's called the 'GlaZer'
(so Bob was NOT wrong, he just preferes South African Glazers to American
Glasers...

Gary Glen-Young                        E-mail:glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
University of Cape Town, South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
*Ci vi pacem, parabellum*
*God made men BIG & small,then Samuel Colt made them all equal,Now Gaston Glock
has made some better than others.*
________________________________________________________________________________
[yes, it's a Glock 19 in 9mm!!!]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns