HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:17:07 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <pa142548.609.726246231@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9301042000.28@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>> >Or can't pass a written test, or a shooting test, or can't get letters 
>>>> >of recommendation from three other citizens, or doesn't belong to a
>>>> >bona-fide sporting club ($100-$200/year).
>>>
>>>> These requirements have changed over the last decade.
>>
>>>Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs, son.  I went through the
>>>entire process I described no more than THREE MONTHS ago.
>>
>>And I went through the process in the late 70's.  It was a snap.

>It's 1992.  The 70's were 20 years ago.

Actually, 14 years ago, to be precise.

>>What was her reason for getting a license for the protection of life and
>>property.  Business?  A substantiated attack?
>
>She shouldn't need a reason.  That she feels a need for resonable means of 
>self defense should be enough.

And the police are paid from the taxpayers money to protect her.

>>>churches for over a decade.  Mack Mitchell -- maybe you've heard of him,

I know what town they live in from the guys name above.  I am quite surprised
that they had a problem there, as it is a town that allows hunting, etc.

>>Well, you have to play the game since the state makes the rules.
>>
>Those rules are illegal under the US constitution.  You should not be "
>playing by them,"  you should abide by them and work to change them.  Not 
>accept them because the "state makes the rules."  The state is the servant 
>of the people, not the master of them.

Why doesn't any press the Supreme Court on the issue?

>>>Wow, what an incredible asshole I must be to insist that the police 
>>>assume that citizens are innocent until they are proven guilty.  What 
>>>would America be like if that were, like, a general rule or something?
>>
>>How would you have them do this if there were no licensing procedures
>>for guns?  How do you screen out people who already have a criminal
>>record?
>
>Keep a national database of convicted felons.  Have the purchaser present a 
>driver's liscence.  Dial up the database.  If there is not a "denied" 
>response, make the sale.  No wait, no elaborate research.

So you take the responsibility away from the police, and put it on 
the poor bastard who owns a gun store.

>>And if you believe the recently published statistics, you wife is in
>>the greatest amount of danger from you, and my SO is in the greatest
>>amount of danger from me.
>
>Only if you have either a criminal record or a violent history.

There is a guy on trial right now, Kenneth Seguin, who comes from the
next town.  He strangled his kids, and chopped up his wife with an
axe.  He was a "seemingly" mild mannered vice president at a local
high tech firm.

Cases like this have been happening all during 1992 in Mass.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The NRA has an image problem with gays
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:50:33 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <C0KAGu.IxB@SSD.intel.com>, hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:

> |> On the subject of Jeff Cooper:  I don't want to libel anyone by
> |> claiming he is an NRA director when he isn't.  I saw in the 
> |> American Rifleman that a Jeff Cooper had voted on some internal
> |> NRA resolution or other.  Who knows if it was the same guy.
> 
> I believe Cooper is a former director, which may explain the confusion.  Remember
> that Cooper is in his seventies, and formed most of his adult preconceptions
> during WWII.  That doesn't make his prejudices ok, of course.

Cooper is listed in the July or August AR as a Director, though he is not
on the Executive Board.  I was surprised at how many Directors NRA had --
something on the order of 50.
-- 

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: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary)
Subject: Re: Firearms article in Jan '93_The Atlantic_
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 05:31:30 GMT
Summary: Ayoob and blind men with guns

In article <1993Jan12.155614.17551@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
> 
> |Certainly, why not?  A magazine writer (Ayoob, I think) recommends a 
> |big-bore handgun loaded with blanks as a self-defense weapon for the
> |blind.  Fine with me ... the victim can blast away, knowing he can't
> |hurt anyone, while the perpetrator is wondering what the hell's going
> |on, or is mightily surprised if he knows his victim is (supposedly)
> |defenseless & unarmed.
> 
> Interesting; where did Ayoob make this recommendation?
> 
> Such a device would make one hell of a direct contact weapon; remember
> that fool actor John Hexum ("Coverup") who put the .44Mag prop gun
> to his head and terminated his life by pressing the trigger, causing
> the combustion gases to push part of his skull into his brain?
> 

Ayoob talks about this on pages 192 and 193 of the Truth About
Self Protection.  He says he would do it if blinded because he is 
qualified but would not recommend it to anyone else.  He says he would 
get used to close contact fighting, use a gun with magna trigger
and high speed "explosive" bullets, and press it against the
attackers midriff to make use of the blast effect and protect
bystanders.  The "explosive" bullets would take care of the 
overpenetration problem.

Brian Leary

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:59:41 GMT

In article <9301092258.38@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!gatech!udel!wupost!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!alliant!merk!rmkhome!rmk
>From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
>Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
>Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:56:55 GMT
>Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)
>Message-ID: <9301092258.38@rmkhome.UUCP>
>References: <PA146008.601.726336489@utkvm1.utk.edu> <9301061637.45@rmkhome.UUCP> <ARCHER.662.726428493@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>Lines: 21
>In article <ARCHER.662.726428493@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <9301061637.45@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>       Besides, you were talking, as well, about checking peoplfor a 
>>>>subjective psychological readiness for a gun.  Instant checks have been 
>>>>instituted to check someone for a criminal record.  What happens it what 
>>>>always happens when you try to control a commodity that people who don't 
>>>>obey they law want.  They find a way around it.
>>>
>>>That's right.  I'm a criminal.  I steal your wallet and use your SS number
>>>and other pertinent information to make myself an identity that will
>>>allow me to pass the spot check.  The spot check is now worthless.
>>
>>WELL DONE!  Criminals can circumvent ANY gun control scheme you care to put 
>>in place.
>
>Except for one that requires taking of finger prints as a basis for
>identification.
>
That is not practical at this time.  Further, many people object to having 
their fingerprints on file.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 1.2 Million Handgun Defenses per year
Summary: Victims tend to underestimate defensive uses - Kleck
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:48:39 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <LAMBERT.93Jan12220125@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>, lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> >>>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:02:36 GMT, oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) said:
> 
> > Kleck talks about problems with surveys, but states that the surveys 
> > probably tend to underestimate gun defenses due to recall failure.
> 
> Or overestimate, due to telescoping.
> 

I agree this is possible  - however the multi-year surveys might tend to  
balance these two effects - I expect that is why Kleck uses them.

However, Kleck appears to think recall failure more likely.  He cites
U.S. LEAA 1972 and says: "Despite the highly dramatic nature of
crime incidents, victims nevertheless frequently fail to recall
them in survey interviews, even when questioned as little as 6
months after the events." (1)

Brian Leary

(1) Kleck, Point Blank, page 109.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:48:27 GMT

In article <9301092346.39@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <1ii89nINNn9d@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>In article <9301051952.18@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>> A friend of mine got his sporting license 3 years ago.  He joined a gun
>>> club for less than $100 per year, got the three references, and was given
>>> a permit.  No hassle.
>>
>>So you approve of policies that restrict gun ownership to the relatively
>>well-off.
>
>I don't see $100 per year as excessive.

The only gun club in a nearby community is run by a bunch of jerks.
Kelly thinks that anyone they don't like should be disarmed.  Wowsers!

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: How many gays are there in the NRA?
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 13:56:50 GMT

In article <1ikp71INNsk0@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
>
>Rod Anderson replies:
>>Homosexuals are welcome to join the NRA.  I am sure that the NRA respects
>>the gays right of self defense.
>
>Technically, you are correct.  The membership form for the NRA doesn't
>actually ask you if you are gay.  However, I'll go by what Jeff Cooper
>says in his column in Guns and Ammo, assuming this is the same Jeff
>Cooper who is a director of the NRA.

What Jeff Cooper writes in Guns and Ammo is not an official position
of the NRA.

>I think he and his colleagues
   *****
>would say that homosexuals are perverts who would be bad for the NRA's
>image, but since the NRA consists of right-thinking, upstanding armed
>citizens, there can't be any of them in it.

Why don't you ask him, instead of guessing.

>In fact, he might say that that morally homosexuals are criminals,
>it's just that not all jurisdictions have made sex between two
>men a legal crime.

And the moon might be made of green cheese.

>But I see that you are a doubting Thomas.  Ask Neal Knox and Jeff
>Cooper and Leroy Pyle what they think.

Leroy Pyle may be reached at nracop@cup.portal.com; ask him yourself.

>Better yet, spread the word if you're an NRA member that you're gay
>(whether or not you actually are) and see what happens.

I know a gay NRA member.  Frankly, no one in our gun club cares that
he is gay -- wrt to him being in the NRA and a gun owner.  It's a
persons character which matters not what sex person they have an
intimate relationship with.

Your mileage may vary.  The NRA has 3,000,000 members and membership
is open to anyone who satisfies membership requirements; and that
includes homosexuals and homophobes.  Do you believe there is a large
proportion of homophobes in the NRA as compared to the US population
at large ?  What evidence do you have of this belief ?

Welcome to my kill file.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Saved by the gun
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:21:44 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA


ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:

#### He fell asleep after raping the woman.  She got loose from her chains,
#                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#Realize that this strongly implies that the woman was naked.

	I'd like to take this opportunity to tie this back into the
Psychology of Defense thread by mentioning that a lack of clothing is
a very impressive psychological factor.  If you're ever in the police
station for some reason, look outside of the drunk tank.  Notice the
shoes?  Without shoes, an inmate feels somewhat less omnipotent and
less ready to struggle against police.  Walking about your house wearing
only your underwear isn't such a problem until somebody else walks in.
Who feels the most vulnerable?  Obviously the person less armored, even
if that armor is only cotton or denimn.

	I mention this because, in a home-defense situation, it is
entirely possible the homeowner will find himself holding a gun and
having the dangly-bits waving in the breeze.  Such a situation may
be grounds for the homeowner to feel much more threatened than if
the homeowner were clothed in even a bathrobe.

	What to do?  Personally, I wear my shorts to bed most times,
the exceptions being when Iowa's hot and humid summer kicks in with
full force.  I also keep a bathrobe near the bed.  Those in more
southern climes or those with air conditioning might wish to
evaluate just how vulnerable they feel sleeping in whatever state
of clothing they most often choose, and adjust accordingly.  An
attitude of vulnerability is certainly healthy, but one has to be
cautious of when it might not be a "reasonable" fear, or at least
not recognized by the jury or court.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A Gun in Hand is Worth Two in the Bush (something like that)
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Always wear your safety equipment, kiddies.
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:17:31 GMT

In article <9301092205.48@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <4zyr59q@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>>>>When I was a Georgia resident I did.  Here in Tennessee, private citizens
>>>>can't get carry permits.
>>
>>>When you were living in Georgia, how often did you have to pull a gun and/or
>>>shoot at somebody?
>>
>>
>>So Rick, how many times have you used your seatbelt?  Does the low
>>probability of your needing your seatbelt preclude you from wearing it?
>>Or have you figured out when you're going to have a wreck and only
>>wear it then?
>
>That's kind of the wrong question to ask someone from Massachusetts.  It
>is best to figure that your number is up every time you get behind the
>wheel.  Just in the block I'm on, my neighbors and myself have had at
>least 20 cars come crashing into our front yards in the last five years.
>
>I've broken my back in two car accidents where I was standing still and
>someone else crashed into me.
>
>I always where a seatbelt.

      Though I'm willing to be Rick doesn't know it, he just answered his
own question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:23:51 GMT

In article <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>Why? There is no way to prevent someone who is not "psycologically able" 
>>from getting a handgun.  All you can do is place a political tool at the
>>hands of people who think that no one should own a handgun.
>
>And what about people with felony records?

What about them?  You failed to even come up with something coherent
here.  You asked a question, that cannot be answered because we can't
read your mind as to the subject of your question,

>>
>>It takes one minute to train even an idiot to not hurt themselves or 
>>others:  don't point the end with the hole in it at anything you don't want 
>>a hole in.
>
>There is slightly more to it than that.

Yes, there is, but that's the most important one.  Even if you teach
said idiot the whole range of safety techniques, if they all fail
he'll still be ok if he abides by the first one.  
-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:11:26 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats

In article <1993Jan6.150757.23200@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
>In article <9301052017.35@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>[snip]
>>There is a guy on trial right now, Kenneth Seguin, who comes from the
>>next town.  He strangled his kids, and chopped up his wife with an
>>axe.  He was a "seemingly" mild mannered vice president at a local
>>high tech firm.
>
>So he managed this without using a gun?  Think about it...


And if his wife had owned a gun for self-protection, she'd still be
dead, since he got her while she was asleep.
-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:31:37 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <16B523162.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <9301100014.02@rmkhome.UUCP>
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>>In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan7135421@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes
>>><In article <9301061155.03@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>><   In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan5134603@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) wites:
>>>
>>><   ><   I believe there is some benefit in determining if a person is
>>><   >,   psychologically able to take on the responsibility of owning
>>>,   ><   a handgun.
>>><   >
>>>,   >	Then why isn't Kelly also demanding licensing for cars;
>>><   >	automobiles are used to cause more deaths than firearms
>>><   >	every year.<
>>>
>>><   I don't know about the laws where you live but cars and drivers here are
>>><   licensed/registered, and cars get a title search before the registration
>>><   is granted.
>>>
>>>	And do they also determine if a person is "psychologically
>>>	able to take on the responsibility of owning a car"?
>>>
>>>	If not, why not?
>>
>>Probably because the primary purpose od automobiles is transportation, not
>>defense.
>
>       I don't get it.  Are you suggesting that guns availability should
>be controlled because the purpose is for *defense*, not becuase the thing
>can be a dangerous weapon?
>
>       Exactly what other defense items should be so regulated?
>
>       Locks?  Mace?  Stun guns?  Maglites?
>
>       Enquiring minds wanna know.

Under Mass law:

Mace - requires a FID card

Pepper gas - requires a FID card

Stun guns - even the police can't have them

Saps - requires a pistol permit

nightstick - requires a pistol permit

Double edged weapons longer than 1.5 inches - banned

Switch blade knives - banned

nunchuks - they fall in some gray area

brass knuckles - banned

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: BNR Inc. RTP, NC
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:21:53 GMT

>CD Taveras wrote: 
>That's ONE legal search.  Here's another:
>"Do you mind if we search your car?"
>"I'd rather you didn't."
>"If you insist, we can tow it to the town yard until we can get a
> warrant to search it, and charge you for the towing and storage.
> What's it going to be?"

 In the low crime state of New Jersy ;^) this type of search happened all the time
it was usually preceded by we stopped you for a registration and insurance check.
 That's why I moved out in 79. 
 My sisters friend a nurse got stopped by the same cop every day on her way to work,
and went through the search routine every day. 
	 
	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.   
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:26324 misc.legal:22310
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 10 Jan 93 11:37:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1993Jan10.113719.15410
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Western Washington University

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>Ah, but if you are carrying an illegal weapon, then you are a criminal.
>And if you kill someone with an illegal weapon, self defense or not,
>then you are a murderer.


That isn't true in any of the 50 states.

It may be something you can be charged for, but murder has it's 
own seperate definition.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Vince Tessier)
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:06:59 GMT

anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
>Speaking for myself, I declare that:

>I will always give another human being nearly limitless benefit of the
>doubt before pointing a gun at him or her.  If it means I or
>someone in my family might die needlessly, so be it.  At least I
>won't kill needlessly.

Huzzah!  You have the courage of your convictions, and I congratulate
you.  I, however, have different convictions, and I will not have
your rules imposed on me.
-- 
	Vince Tessier (vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu)
Mort Sahl: General, aren't you supporting Castro by smoking that Havana cigar?
Alexander Haig:	I prefer to think of it as burning his crops to the ground.
(from an interview of Mort Sahl on National Public Radio, 23nov91)
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:13:43 GMT
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma

In article <1ii89nINNn9d@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <9301051952.18@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>> A friend of mine got his sporting license 3 years ago.  He joined a gun
>> club for less than $100 per year, got the three references, and was given
>> a permit.  No hassle.
>

I had no hassle getting an "all lawful purposes" permit which allows me to carry
concealed.   There is somethign screwed up about a system in which individuals
rights within a state vary tremendously depending on what town they live in, and
who is in power in that town.

Also, as C.D. Tavares mentioned, reversals of fortune are common.

f'rinstance:

Wellesley (affluent Boston suburb) used to be a "no one gets an unrestricted permit and
it's tough to get a target permit" town, then they changed chiefs.  It's now very simple
for someone with a clean record to get an unrestricted permit.

Holliston : (semi rural suburb 25 miles west of Boston).  Exactly the reverse of the 
above is true.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns