HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: California Course / More
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:29:31 GMT
Distribution: us
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

Here's more information about the new California safety course law, from
the OUTDOORS forum of CompuServe.


From:    Mac Scott/CA 70544,550

John--

I just dug out my notes from my hours spent on this panel, and am quoting
 (in synopsized form) from the actual assembly bill (AB618):
       A.  Any Calif. or federal peace officer
       B.  Any honrably retired peace officer
       C.  Honorably retired federal officers who were authorized to carry guns
during their employment.
       D.  Persons holding valid CCW permits
       E.  Any person who have a certificate of competency in hunter safety.
       F.  Any person who holds a valid hunting license in California.
       G.  Any basic firearms safety instructor, as certified by "Section
12805."
       H.  Authorized participants of DCM programs.
       K.  Persons who have successfully completed PC832 (Powers of arrest)

It would seem that the answer to your query is "yes."  There are lots of ways
around this thing as it stands.

--Mac

From:    Phill Jackson/CA 70014,146

   For those who are interested, I just talked to Jerry Upholt, the Sacramento
representative of the Calif Rifle and Pistol Assn. about the reported law that
will require taking a safety class before buying firearms.

 He said the new law isn't slated to go into effect til Oct. 93.  The Calif DOJ
is to plan the curriculum but no funds have as yet been allocated.  If they are
not, he said, the law may never go into effect.

Phill Jackson

From:    Steve Sando 76357,1327

Here's Calif. Penal Code 12072:

.. Beginning on July 1, 1993, no dealer can transfer a handgun unless the
person to whom transferred presents to the dealer a "Basic Farearm Safety
Certificate" or proof of being in one of the exempt catagories: honorably
discharged military, retied law enforcement, concealed weapons permit holders,
firearms dealers, firearms safety instructors, licensed hunters, Hunter's
Safety Course Certificate holders, government certified firearms match
competitors (if any), active duty military and active duty law enforcement.
Once certified, the certificate is good for all future handgun purchases.

Steve
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mdeering@agsm.ucla.edu (Michael Deering)
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Organization: UCLA, Anderson Graduate School Of Management
Date: 18 Dec 92 08:39:21 PST

In article <102510@netnews.upenn.edu> yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes:
>
>>No, I'm not a policeman, don't even know any. I know there's been people
>>mistreated by police, but I've been mistreated by many people, in many walks
>>of life, I don't have to brand them all as 'bad'.
>
>One important point.  If I mistreat you, I do so as your equal.  The police
>have been given powers over you.  When he mistreats you, he does so from a 
>position of power.  With power comes responsibility.  It is reasonable to 
>hold a policeman to a higher standard of conduct.
>
>We hold commercial airplane pilots to a higher standard of alcohol ingestion
                                         ^^^^^^
Nope, I don't think so.  The level or standard they are held to, if anything,
is lowere tahn most states presumptive level of blood alcohol for intoxication.

Mick

Please, no fiery rhetoric, I am dangerously close to some flammable but
potable liquids even now!


>for the same reason.
>
>-- 
>411 Blockley Hall      |                    Conway Yee, N2JWQ
>418 Service Drive      | yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)
>Philadelphia, PA 19104 | cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)
>(215) 662-6780         |


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: anti-gun petition (english version)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:56:22 GMT

In article <724086462.AA04855@mcws.fidonet.org>, 
Mark.Hockings@f824.n102.z1.fidonet.org (Mark Hockings) writes:

>  s> Dear fellow Canadian,
> 
>  s> The tragic and senseless  events of 24 August 1992 at Concordia
>  s> University have left  us with a terrible  feeling of
>  s> bewilderment,  sadness and  loss. Concordia,  the entire
>  s> Canadian university community and,  indeed, Canadian society
>  s> have  experienced  a shock.  The killing  of four  colleagues
>  s> and wounding of another by  an individual armed with three
>  s> legally acquired and easily concealed  handguns will remain with
> 
> handguns by definition are concealable. no point there.

I wouldn't count on that.  I was looking over some regs from Michigan
the other day and was surprised to learn that *any* rifle or shotgun
with a pistol grip is a "pistol".  Also, any shotgun or rifle between
26 and 30 inches is also a pistol.  I guess I can't see how a pistol grip,
or something 26+ inches long is considered "easily concealable".  I think
my State legislature has some explaining to do...

Obviously a *TANK* could be legislated into a "handgun"...  ;->

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
From: chrispy@hardy.u.washington.edu (Chris Prince)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Guns and Age
Date: 21 Dec 92 03:23:48 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


I don't know much about guns, but I'm very curious.  I have attempted to learn
about gun control (especially with handguns) and find it very hard to get
much help because I'm not 21 yet.
Why must you be 21 to get a handgun?
I can walk into any gun shop and by a shotgun, cut off the stock and barrel
and it would be just a dangerous as any handgun, even as easy to conceal.
This seems that it is just a waste of time to even have an age restriction
and besides, it's to easy to get a handgun off the street anyway.
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: ALERT! Anti-gun meeting in NoVA
Date: 20 Dec 1992 19:15:12 GMT
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com

In article <1gqimeINN846@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan  
Swartzendruber) writes:
> In article <1992Dec17.174211.19746@gmuvax2.gmu.edu>, amcmicha@gmuvax2.gmu.edu  
(Andrew McMichael) writes:
> > In article <1857@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
> > >
> 
> [deleted]
> 
> > 1. Thanks for letting me know so I ccan show up and voice my
> > support. [for stronger laws regulating handguns, that is.
> > 
> > 2. Yeah,  Heinlein sure was a nut, wasn't he.
> 
> Another voice from the land of the clueless.
>  
> 
> > -- 
> > Andrew McMichael
> > George Mason University
> > Fairfax, Va
> > amcmicha@gmuvax2.gmu.edu
> 
> -- 
> 
> #include <std_disclaimer.h>
> 
> Dan S.

It's been my experence that in general, the .edu'ers let their profs think for  
them.  And of course, the profs don't think.  They teach.

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: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Mail Order SKS
Organization: BNR Inc. RTP, NC
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:06:24 GMT

>Fredrik Nyman wrote:
>resident, and there are no restrictions on gun purchases in Montana,
>the Massachusetts FID requirement apparently didn't apply; only
>Massachusetts residents need FIDs.  This is, of course, if the buyer
>can legally buy the same gun in his home state, which was the case
>here.
 
 According to the BATF the buyer must follow the rules of both states.
The stricter rule aplying if there are 2 similar. Example : waiting periods	
the longer waiting period would apply, if a Ca. resident wanted to buy a long
gun in Nev. he would still have to wait 15 days even though Nev. doesn't have a
waiting period. Also a Nev. resident would have to wait 15 days to buy a long gun
in Ca.
 
	Myron Petro
	NRA, USPSA
        DVC y'all
	**************************************************************************
	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the 
	 Second Amendment.   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:29:25 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Dec15025409@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 1992 20:29:58 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
> (Andy Freeman) said:
> > That's an interesting leap by Lambert.  A dictionary has a definition
> > so he assumes that "everyone" uses it that way.  The dictionary's
> > definition is wrong BECAUSE usage does define meaning and the usage is
> > "guns owned by niggers".
> 
> Everyone I have seen has used the Random House definition.  It would
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> be simple to prove that not eveyone uses the Random House definition
> -- provide one single example where somebody has used it to mean "guns
> owned by niggers".

***EVERYONE***????  That's funny, I specifically used **Webster's**
dictionary.  In fact you have commented to this effect in a later
posting...  Perhaps you find the most efficient method of arguing
your point is to misrepresent that facts...

Oh, I see how you can say this "Everyone I have seen...", and
since we're in the US, and you're in Australia, you haven't
actually **SEEN*** us.

> > It's quite relevant.  SNS is tied to an argument.  That argument is
> > that getting rid of "them" will do some good.
> 
> It would be relevant if the Random House definition was "evil handguns
> that we should ban".  But it isn't.  It's "a cheap, small caliber
> handgun that is easily obtainable".  There is nothing here about
> getting rid of them, and yet you claim that this definition is
> "doesn't make sense" because "getting rid of them doesn't make sense".
> What doesn't make sense is your argument.

That's funny...  Webster's dictionary gives a different definition
(which doesn't include the "small caliber" clause).

> > That the characteristics offered don't distinguish the guns.  Large
> > caliber guns can be cheap and available.
> 
> You can't tell the difference between a cheap small calibre gun and a
> cheap large calibre gun?  I'm no firearms expert, but I think I could
> figure that one out.

Ah, but does the mere fact that it's small caliber make it a
"Saturday Night Special"?  OK, you can go ahead and ban "cheap,
small caliber" firearms, and we'll all buy cheap, LARGE caliber
firearms.  You shouldn't be bothered by this, since Random House
doesn't define LARGE caliber handguns to be "Saturday Night Specials"...

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief)
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	2.064346.13444@u.washington.edu>
	<1992Dec2.203756.10142@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<LAMBERT.92Dec8161841@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Dec12.011745.6874@Cadence.COM> <1992Dec13.032142.517@mtu.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:49:01 GMT

>>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:21:42 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:

>>     Nonsense. Random House is dead right on this one (BTW, 1984 is not the
>>     latest edition).

>> I have total incontrovertable proof of this: J.J. gave
>>     this definition of "saturday night special" in episode of "Good Times".

> And obviously J.J. is a linguist....

Oh I see, only linguists are qualified to define words.  If that is
the case, why don't you and Andy who are not linguists accept the
definition provided by the linguists hired by Random House.

Tim
From: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Media Error/Bias Log proposal
Date: 20 Dec 1992 01:59:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) says:

>This log would be a good way to prove the "media bias" point to a non-believer.
>If anyone has specific examples (with date and where aired/published) I would
>be willing to compile them into a file.                   

	I am on the readers panel of a Gannet paper, the Bellingham Herald.
Jack Keith, the senior editor say that he gets no instructions from
Gannet on what slant to put on things, and he just writes what he
thinks.  
	I brought up an article where they refered to some ordinary rifles 
as "assault rifles", the misuse and ambiguity of the word (because the
article didn't specify whether they were "real" assault rifles or
just "slang" ars, ie ordinary, legal rifles- the reader never found
out).  I also brought up "assault weapon" as a vauge slag term with
a plastic meaning.
	He agreed that they were misleading, said he would avoid vauge slang
terms like AW and AR in the future.   His explanation for the use of the 
terms was that neither himself or his reporters know anything 
about guns, and that these are honest mistakes.   I believe him.

	Some of the other people on the panel agreed with me about the 
mistakes, but it just didn't bug them as much.

	I also pointed out a story where they said "semi-automatic-handgun" 
instead of the more standard, six sylables shorter term: "pistol".
He said that it was kind of silly to use a much longer, uncommon, synonym
for a common term, and that it was a mistake of not being technically
aware.  He said that "if the police say the perp used a purple-people- 
eating-pistol, that's what the reporter writes down".  

He said it was not an attempt at sensationalism, but just a mistake.
He said they just didn't have a clue about guns.

	He said he would try to avoid the misuse of AR, use of slang, 
technical errors, and sensationistic terms, and I believe him that it 
is a case of them simply not knowing, rather than a conspiracy to lie
and intentionaly make mistakes that I was enclined to believe before 
being on this panel and meeting Jack.

	When I see these things, I correct them and point them out
to the editors and they welcome it, because that is what I am supposed
to do as a reader panel member.   If I just sent my comments to a
strange paper, however, I wonder if my suggestions would do anything
except go into the garbage.

	If other papers are like the BH, the editors and reporters
"don't have a clue about guns" and write in a haze of confusion,
rather than being a group of conspirators who are aware of reality
yet seek to misrepresent it.

	I am sure there are both kinds, and I think that quite a few
of them fall into the first category, like the Herald.

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:10:33 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Dec15025409@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 1992 20:29:58 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) said:
>> That's an interesting leap by Lambert.  A dictionary has a definition
>> so he assumes that "everyone" uses it that way.  The dictionary's
>> definition is wrong BECAUSE usage does define meaning and the usage is
>> "guns owned by niggers".
>
>Everyone I have seen has used the Random House definition.

Then Lambert is unfamiliar with the gun control debate and the
usage of SNS in that debate.

Random House's SNS definition is like defining "nigger" as "poor black
person".  A few people use it that way, a lot of people will try to
claim that they're using it that way, but they're not.

>> It's quite relevant.  SNS is tied to an argument.  That argument is
>> that getting rid of "them" will do some good.
>
>It would be relevant if the Random House definition was "evil handguns
>that we should ban".  But it isn't.

And, the "poor black person" definition of "nigger" wouldn't mention
"we should control them" either.  Some things aren't explicitly said
in polite company.

>>  Guns for "niggers" are no more available than guns for anyone else.
>
>Again, irrelevant.  The Random House definition says nothing about
>"niggers".

Sure it does.  That's what the term SNS is all about.

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: A Coffee-House Conversation with an Imaginary Nadja
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<LAMBERT.92Nov25181204@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1g1fqbINN5i8@roche.csl.sri.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:53:24 GMT

>>>>> On 8 Dec 92 06:36:59 GMT, boucher@csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:
> |> (John De Armond) said:
> |>
> |> > Kennesaw is the city.  Even though the law is symbolic, it served
> |> > its purpose.  Burglarlies dropped to zero the following year.
> |> > That's ZERO.  Nadda.

> |> Here are the actual numbers (from Sociology & Social Research v74:1 p51)

> |> Kennesaw Burglaries 1976-1986
> |> 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 48 85 86
> |> 41 21 22 35 35 54 35 35 29 32 70

> |> The Kennesaw law was passed on March 15, 1982 and pretty clearly had
> |> NO EFFECT on the burglary rate.

> It appears to me that, according to your own figures, the law had a marked 
> effect.  From '77 - '81, burglaries steadily increased.  As soon as the law 
> was passed, they decreased, and stayed down for 4 years before rising again.

> Why do you quote these numbers that destroy your case?  Don't you understand 
> them?

I understand perfectly well how you can manufacture a trend by
creative data selection.  If you take four successive random numbers
there is one chance in eight that they will form an ancreasing or
decreasing sequence.  Your "trend" is nothing more than random
fluctuations.  You can read the article I cited for a proper
statistical analysis.


> And, just to head you off at the pass, if your claim is that 70 burglaries in 
> '86 shows that the law failed, please give evidence for the number of 
> burglaries that would have been committed in '86 without the '82 law.

Oh I see, the law caused the "low" values that followed, but the high
values "would have been higher if not the for the law".  You're on to
a good argument there, Peter, but you didn't take it far enough.  I
mean why not say "There would have been over a hundred burglaries in
each of the years 82-86, were it not for the 82 law.  Anyone who
doubts this has to give evidence to the contrary."

> Put up, or shut up.

To summarize your argument:  if you throw out the data that does not
support your theory, the remaining data supports your theory.  This is
not very exciting.

I don't think it is a good idea to let your political beliefs cloud
your powers of reasoning.

Tim


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: New Libertarian Gun Control Book
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:14:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.173115.295@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
}In article <1992Dec15.105908.380@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}
}>THE SAMURAI, THE MOUNTIE, AND THE COWBOY
}>
}>It's a libertarian public-policy book on gun control that takes an
}>international, "multicultural" perspective.
}
}I don't understand why you call this book libertarian.  Kopel closes the
}book with the comment that gun controls should be left up to the states
}and not the federal government.  Huh ?  That's pretty unlibertarian IMO.
}A libertarian would say, there should be no gun control laws federal,
}state or local.  He says other countries laws are okay for those countries.
}Excuse me ?  If the RKBA is really valid it should be valid elsewhere,
}not just the USA.

While I haven't finished it yet, I can see it being moderately libertarian.
It's theoretically possible to have some sort of gun policy which could
be constitutional; certainly you don't think that Israel's armory-libraries
infringe upon the RKBA!  And if some policy meets takings clause constraints,
then BINGO!

}>I've read the chapter on Japan, which is very interesting,
}
}There is a small error in this chapter.  He states female police officers
}are not armed; this is not true, female officer were recently issued
}Browning .25 automatics.  Okay, okay.  Almost true :-)
}
}>The bit about "responsible firearms policy"
}
}He says the right policy for America should be one that promotes safe
}gun use.  A libertarian gun control policy would be NONE, as it is not
}a proper function of the government per libertariansim.
}
}It's a very good book, but it's not libertarian.

See Epstein's "Takings" for a fairly radical libertarian interpretation of
US constitutional law.  It's been underappreciated by most.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:44:52 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Dec16030320@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

> Cheap also means "low quality".  Since when is .38 small calibre?

Low quality doesn't mean much either; It's is all relative.  If you
reduce the quality far enough, the firearm will become dangerous to
fire; I know of no manufacturer who would sell firearms of *that*
low quality in the U.S. (the liability problem).

One could point out that "zip guns" [slang] are generally low quality,
but these are already built illegally, so regulations won't affect their
manufacture or sale.

> You seem to have an opinion on what a SNS is.  Let's see your
> definition.

Sorry Tim, I don't believe in the so called "Saturday Night Special";
They just don't exist (but Flying Saucers might ;-)

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Media Error/Bias Log proposal
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:15:32 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

I think we should begin NOW to establish and maintain a log of media errors
and bias WRT the RKBA issues.
I reccomend that:

  every time a nationally known media organization make an anti-RKBA error,
  or shows an apparrent bia against RKBA, it should be pointed out and added
  to the list.

Recent examples:

   Last Monday on "Nightline", assault rifles were defined as semi-automatic
   and "worse than other rifles...".
   Thursday night on CBS evening news: They showed a marine holding up a
   firearm and saying "heres a semi-automatic machine-gun". :(

This log would be a good way to prove the "media bias" point to a non-believer.
If anyone has specific examples (with date and where aired/published) I would
be willing to compile them into a file.