HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:56:47 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <9204081804.AA04894@skinner.nprdc.navy.mil> malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.005718.15174@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au writes:
>>Well in Australia, the police recognise that private gun ownership
>>does not help minimise crime, and that it has the opposite
>>effect. That is why the Police Associations plus the Chief
>>Commissioners are right behind our gun laws, specifically
>>the new ones which prohibit the ownership of guns for
>>"self defence".
>
>From the information Brian collected showing that Australian police,
>while they are obligated to _respond_ to crimes, have no obligation
>to _protect_ an individual from criminals. In point of fact, there's
>no practical way for a police force to provide _protection_ to every
>individual. From the statement above, we see that the Police
>Association and the Chief Commissioners are strongly opposed to
>letting individuals protect _themselves_. The police can't protect
>you, and they won't let you protect yourself -- what protection does
>the individual _get_?
>
The individual gets protection of the police and protection by
others in the community. We do not have the same problems as you
have in America. We have Neighbourhood Watch and there are
programs for people to learn how not to be a victim. There are also
classes in the martial arts.   
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:59:51 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr07.153323.8882@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article <susan.702616434@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>
>>	And so he responds yet again and in the same vein.....
>>
>>	So, are you that afraid of having some beer spilled on your addled
>>brained pate?  Or do you like brawling for a living?
>
>I certainly wouldn't let anyone get a bottle near enough my head to
>pour it on me-- how do I know the guy isn't going to do something more
>damaging with the bottle?
>
Oh really! I suppose you worry when any one is near you. What
if they pulled a knife, what if they had a gun, what if they
were an axe murderer.

You must live a miserable life, is all I can say. 

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: CNN's report on gun control????
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:04:14 GMT

In article <53301@mimsy.umd.edu> achaboty@desire.wright.edu writes:
>	On Friday night/Saturday morning there was a story on CNN about
>some sort of gun control.  Did anyone happen to catch what it said...I
>only saw the tail end of it and didn't see it again.  They were reporting
>from Columbus, Ohio and since I am located in Dayton, I figured it may
>directly effect me.
>	Thanks a lot for your help.

Ohio House Bill 709, which I posted here would make it a criminal
offense for your loaded firearm to fall into the hands of a child
[less than 16 years of age].  Also, this bill would require the Ohio
Dept. of Education to establish a course for gun safety awareness
to be taught to students in public schools.  If you need a copy of
the bill let me know and I'll mail it to you along with some
commentary.

Or it could have been about this:

Columbus, OH passed an "assault weapon" ban a couple years ago.
Some manufacturers, I believe Colt and Springfield Armory are
among them, have filed a lawsuit claiming that it's an illegal
bill of attainder.  The anti-gun attorney general, Lee Fisher, is
saying all sorts of baloney that these are the weapons of choice
of drug dealers and violent criminals, blah blah blah ...  He even
was shown on tv and the newspaper holding an AR-15 on the steps of
the State House.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"Be wary of strong drink.  It can make you shoot
at tax collectors - and miss." -- Lazarus Long
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:15:26 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr6.002155.1809@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Apr2.054917.17911@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):
>
>> In article <1992Mar29.162702.4993@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>> >As quoted from <1992Mar28.074238.9344@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):
>> >
>> Re Salmon Rushdie,
>> 
>> >
>> >And when that Hezbollahi comes walking through the door, in the seconds before
>> >Rushdie gets his brains blown out, I'm sure that he'll reflect on how fortunate
>> >he is to live in a country where he didn't have the means to defend himself.
>> >
>> You are a bit behind the times, aren't you. Salmon Rushdie is guarded
>> 24 hours a day by experts. His country pays for this service.
>
>As are US army generals.  They still carry their own pistols.  Of course I'm
>sure that if anybody attacked him, he'd be as well protected by his bodyguards
>as Huey Long was by his....
>
>> He is indeed fortunate to live in England.
>
>As compared to where?  North Korea?  Burkina Faso?  New Jersey?

The USA.
>
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:23:11 GMT

In article <susan.702688764@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
> ...
>	So, you'd provoke a fight, simply because the bloke was threatening
                  ^^^^^^^                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>you?  Yep, such a big man Matthew, do you start fights when someone walks
                                           ^^^^^
>across your shadow?
> 
> ...

  If a bloke "threatens" someone, one might think that it was the bloke
who was "provoking" a fight, wouldn't one?  

  How does "threatening" become equivalent to "walking across your
shadow"?  Or is this another Australian idiom?

--henry schaffer
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: magazine limits
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:29:12 GMT
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC


Given Canadian Justice Minister Kim Campbells plan to
limit all centre-fire pistol magazines to 10 shots, and centre-fire
rifle/shotguns to 5 shots.

What other areas have legal limits on the size of cartridge magazines?

What was the intent of the limits?

Did it work? (By reducing crime, reduce severity of crime, protect the public
		or any positive effect?)


-- 
Greg Booth BSc                        | Diligentia-Vis-Celeritas
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS    |  	Incolumitas
Motorola Mobile Data Division         | 
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com CGB003 at X400MRP
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:00:19 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Apr16.135343.5201@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:
> >1. Lethal force should be used for every confrontation.
> >2. Lethal force should be used for no confrontation.
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> But you see, the gunban types on here can't let go of proposition 2.
> If they were to concede that lethal force may at some time be 
> necessary, their whole argument would immediately collapse like
> the house of cards it is, and make them look even more ridiculous
> than they already do.

Oh, no, no -- they claim that lethal force IS at times necessary,
but that you can arrange things so that a warm, fuzzy police officer 
is always available to do the dirty work for them.

> Of course, they're clinging to a delusion, but
> they can't let go of that delusion:that's insanity.

Same day, different delusion.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: UK court approves use of shotgun
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:39:25 GMT

David Bowman:	   The simple answer is, don't fight.

Matthew Russotto:  So Dave, what does he do if someone picks a
		   fight with him?  Just sit there and get beat up?

Susan McDonald:    Ever thought of running away or of perhaps not
	           getting into a fight in the first place?

Robert Osborne:    It's hard to run away when ...

David Bowman:
> I can think of loads of scenarios where running away is not
> possible. I could not equal the champion of whatifs though!
> But this thread was about people who were in a position
> when they *could* run away.

Awww-right! I'm now "Champion of Whatifs" and a "Ratbag"!

Sorry David, this thread was about fighting.  What you are talking
about is a "duel" (commonly called a "step outside" where I'm from).
In a "duel" either of the participants can decline or run away.  A
fight isn't quite so civilized and often isn't so voluntary.

In the Canadian form of english, duel and fight are not interchangeable.
But then you Australians can redefine your language at will,  now
can't you.

> Just face it, you want to be
> able to use your gun, otherwise why do you always try to 
> say that non-violence will never work?

Why do you always try to say violence never has a place.  For you
information David I have yet to have a fight of any kind, unless you
count wrestling with my younger brother, in the 28 years I've been on
this planet.  I've managed to end all of my encounters with violence
peacefully using reason, fleeing, and/or bluff.  There have been times when
it's been a close thing,  very close.

I am, unlike you David,  not so stupid that I believe that I will
always be able to run, talk, or bluff.   In those times it would
be nice to have more than the hands and arms of a computer geek
to defend myself with.  Unfortunately I live in a country where
a permits to carry can be obtained only by police commissioners
and Brink's employees.

Rob.
BMath, CofW, RB
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack)
Subject: Re: Stop Handguns Postcards
Organization: Rice University, Houston Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 06:17:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.152352.23275@ms.uky.edu>, uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:
> (paraphrasing from memory)
> people.  Each card has a brief anti-gun statement like:  "Last year 22,000  
> Americans died as a result of handgun violence.  In England in 1988 only 9  
> people were murdered with handguns." and a call to support "the regulation  
> of and eventual banning of handgun sales."

	Of course, nothing is stopping you from getting these and 
   altering the address or, even better, making up your own raving 
   anti-gun postcards.  For example, if the local CoP is anti-gun,  
   send postcards to the mayor, local papers, etc. asking why the 
   police are armed with EvilKillerNineMillimeterAssaultPistols.  
   Quote Rep John Bryant (D) of Texas, who said that "[t]he fact 
   of the matter is nobody needs an assault weapon except cowards
   and criminals and weirdos" and be sure to ask which of the three 
   categories the Chief of Police is in.  Sound like a peacenik.  :-)  

	Basically, turn every anti-gun arguement against the police, 
   judges, concilmen and all other public officials that can legally 
   carry handguns.  Maybe if these folk feel that _their_ right to 
   carry is threatened, they won't support anti-gun legislation.  The 
   Brady Bunch obviously doesn't give a damn about the Bill of Rights, 
   so we've got to fight anti-gun legislation on a different level, 
   and make the issue personal for our legislators.

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  My life makes perfect sense 
 kossack@rice.edu  |  Lust and food and violence  
  (713) 270-9056   |                             --  Dire Straits    
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: LA LAW FAIR TO GUN OWNERS?  NOT!
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:40:11 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na


Just to clarify-- the "proper process" for gun-banning in the show
involved getting HUD approval.  A constitutional amendment is what
should be proper process in real life.

Also, did you notice that they had a lot of concern for the
constitutional rights of a convicted child molester given the choice
between probation w/contraceptive implants and jail, but had no
concern for the gunowners constitutional rights?
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:36:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.065647.1227@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

>The individual gets protection of the police and protection by
>others in the community. We do not have the same problems as you
>have in America. We have Neighbourhood Watch and there are
>programs for people to learn how not to be a victim. There are also
>classes in the martial arts.   

You must have a miserable life, worrying all the time about what can
go wrong.

Wait a sec - where have I heard that before?!  :-)


---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                Ack Pffft Thwerrp!  \'o.O'       * * *
                                                    =(___)=  * * * O * * *
Roberta Taylor  KB2OOA        | rlt@gummo.att.com      U         * * *
AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ  |                                 *  *  *
                              | Member, Unorganized Militia of     *
 NRA/CCRKBA/SAF - Life Member |    The People's Republic of        |
   GOA - Annual Member        |          New Jersey              \ |
                                                                  \| /
Would the last American to leave New Jersey please bring the flag? |/
                                                                   |/ 
@----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}   ______|______
From: vanremme@ee.rochester.edu (Bill VanRemmen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:09:21 GMT
Organization: Univ of Rochester, College of Engineering and Applied Science

In article <1992Apr7.031848.5817@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.104946.15968@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.233526.8883@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>>>P.S. Or perhaps the Fire Departments in Australia have practices
>>>>resembling my city Fire Department - and also waste their time
>>>>on "Henry-type hypotheticals" and "whatifs"?

>>Gee, we have a fire department in my town, too.  But I still have smoke
>>detectors in my house, and fire extinguishers in my kitchen and my car.
>>To do otherwise would be pretty stupid, IMO.  Fire department response
>
>You must have a miserable life, worrying all the
>time about what can go wrong. I would get such equipment if
>I lived in the bush, but in the inner city, no way!


One buys the equipment so that one doesn't HAVE to worry
all the time about what might happen.  It's called "Being Prepared"!



>
>>time (like police response time) can be several minutes...longer if they're
>>already busy with another fire (crime).  Guess I should just let my house
>>burn down while I wait?
>
>No. I suggest you do something about the services your
>country provides.


I recently saw a fire safety film in which an entire room was involved 
in a fire about 90 SECONDS after initial ignition.

I doubt that even the great Australian Public-Safety gods could get there 
in THAT amount of time!!!

But someone living there might have enough time to smell the smoke
and react.

Violent attacks can happen just as fast (or faster).  Self-defense
is up to the individual (by definition).



Is Dave really such a twit, or is he just pretending?


-Bill VanRemmen
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 7 Apr 92 09:00:47 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <32216@darkstar.ucsc.edu> cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr6.053750.22925@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.015331.11844@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:
>>>Well, fantastic, everyone in England has their own bodyguard. Why didn't
>>>we think of that?
>>>
>>Who said that everyone in England has a bodyguard? Do you think
>>that the police should just ignore the threats against SR? Or
>>do you think he should be left to defend himself?
>
>Don your flameproof underwear, David, 'cause here I go again. Wayne is
>implying in this post that the only reason Salman Rushdie has a 24-hour
>guard is that he is a person of some public repute, and having him killed
>by Hezbollah fanatics would not be good for England's PR. Whereas, if
>Charlie George the fishmonger is getting death threats from some minion of
>organised crime and applies to the police for aid and protection, he is
>likely to be greeted with "I'm sorry, but until this blackguard actually
>does something illegal, we can't be of assistance." And of course, since he
>can't legally own a handgun for self-defence, he's screwed. Personally, I
>think that Salman Rushdie should have to pay for his bodyguards himself.
>He's not a government official, after all. Maybe then he'd have second
>thoughts on the RKBA and what it means for self-defence.
>
As you don't even know his views on these matters, don't you
think you are being a little presumptuous? Further, I think the
Hezbollah are a little more determined than the enemies of an average
fishmonger. 
Your argument doesn't hold water, and what you write only
shows your lack of compassion.

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: aa543@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thom Boughton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: David Bowman considered as a sliding-block puzzle
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:18:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr14.011848.29163
Reply-To: aa543@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thom Boughton)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) says:

>
>You must have come into this debate late.  It's fairly certain that 
>"David Bowman" is one of several pseudonyms that Kate Juliff (kcj@vut)
>uses to post here.  She created a host of fictional characters to create
>an illusion of support for her views.  Good ole' Dave is the only one 
>still "alive." 

Not quite.  She is still using the Susan McDonald alias from time to time.  She 
doesn't make any more sense than when using David Bowman or her own name...but 
its still in use.  Strange behaviour from strange people ....fancy that!






--

"It's Easy To See Who The Bottle Fed Babys Were!"

                                              ...Theodore Reik
From: mac@cis.ksu.edu (Myron A. Calhoun)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Repeal the second amendment
Date: 17 Apr 92 21:15:08 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: depot.cis.ksu.edu

tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
      [....]
>  However, our society is not a free society. We do not have the right or
>privelege to do many things, because many things REDUCE the freedom of others.
      [....]

I fail to see how MY owing a firearm REDUCES the freedom of any OTHER person.
(Unless, of course, that person(s) was intending to do HARM to me!)
--Myron.
-- 
# We preserve our freedoms using four boxes:  soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge.
# Myron A. Calhoun, PhD EE; Associate Professor  (913) 539-4448 home
# INTERNET:  mac@cis.ksu.edu (129.130.10.5)      532-6350 work, 532-7353 fax
#      UUCP:  ...rutgers!depot!mac               W0PBV @ K0VAY.KS.USA.NA