HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:02:14 GMT

In article <JGREELY.93Jan7132456@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu> jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
>By the way,
>what are your criteria for deciding that the Walther PPK is a "poor
>excuse for a gun"?  Surely not this story, which was an obvious case
>of user error.  Is there some production or design flaw I've
>overlooked in recent-production PPKs?

Doesn't the PPK have a chamber-loaded-indicator ?  I think that's one
of the worse design flaws a gun can have.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 22:49:57 GMT

In article <9301051207.02@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
[snip]
>When you have state governments that seem to release convicted murderers
>and armed robbers on a whim, then you have to have some means of keeping
>them from buying weapons.

It seems the most effective means would be to keep them in prison, then.

Note that Kelly ignores the fact that it is already illegal most (all?) places
for "convicted murderers and armed robbers" to purchase firearms (as well
as simple possession being a parole violation in that case).

Does Kelly contend that "convicted murderers and armed robbers" would not
have easy access to 'alternative' weapons sources should conventional gun
shops require background checks, letters of reference, fingerprints,
waiting periods, and a kiss on the cheek from the local police chief?


+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      | "Americans have a right and advantage of being  |
| NRA               ILA | armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com | whose governments are afraid to trust the       |
|                       | people with arms."      - James Madison,        |
|                       | The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244.        |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum)
Subject: Kurdish guerillas attack Special Forces HQ
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 10:54:00 GMT

subject: Kurdish guerrillas raid Special Forces HQ
posted by: autonome forum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PKK Guerrillas raid Diyarbakir Special Forces HQ
14.December.1992

	Last night (13.December) at about 19:05, a large ARGK (Kurdistan
People's Army for National Liberation) unit attacked the headquarters of
the Special Forces (para-military police) in the town of Diyarbakir. They
raided the headquarters with heavy machine guns. The attack lasted for 46
minutes. Sources in the region put the number of police dead at 27.
	After the guerrilla unit had withdrawn, there were clashes in the
suburbs which lasted for two hours. In these clashes, the Kurd-Ha news
agency put the number of dead Turkish soldiers at 10. They also reported that
police and army units made hundreds of random arrests.
	At about the same time, another ARGK unit ambushed a military convoy
on the road from Hani to Diyarbakir, killing 11 soldiers. This battle lasted
for 45 minutes.

For more information on the liberation struggle being waged in Turkish-occupied
Kurdistan, contact:

	Kurdistan Information Centre
	11 Portland Gardens
	London N4 1HU
	ENGLAND

	tel: 081-880-1759
	fax: 081-802-9963

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     autonome forum: aforum@moose.uvm.edu
                          "solidarity is a weapon!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: communists + anarchists in the NRA
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:55:33 GMT
Reply-To: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Organization: m4

In article <1993Jan5.161623.9558@uvm.edu>, aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum) writes:
|> 
|> Just curious: how many other communists/anarchists are there in the
|> NRA besides us? Hopefully there are some other leftists in the group;
|> we can't let it get totally dominated by right-wing freaks!
|> 
|> 	autonome forum
|> 	aforum@moose.uvm.edu
=======================================

   Hmm- is somebody fishing here?

--- lee KC6KXI  NRA-Life ---
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: *** A M E N D M E N T  has only two M's ***
Date: 9 Jan 1993 22:50:14 GMT
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com

In article <1ihf4nINN7fb@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.452@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
> 
> Repeat after me:
> 
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> "Amendment" has only two M's.
> 
> We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
> 
> 
> --
> ** Anonymity & Privacy by PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia)  
**
> 
> anon.admin@pax.tpa.com.au (a human)    anon.info@pax.tpa.com.au   (for help)
> anon.ping@pax.tpa.com.au  (get alias)  anon.key@pax.tpa.com.au    (register  
key)
> anon.###@pax.tpa.com.au   (reply)      anon.post.g@pax.tpa.com.au (post to g)
> anon.list@pax.tpa.com.au  (to mailing list)
> anon.subscribe@pax.tpa.com.au          anon.unsubscribe@pax.tpa.com.au
> 
> For dialup Unix access phone +61-8-235-9010 - online registration.

You overlook the 9th amendment protection of the "Right to MissSpell"

I was reminded of it when I posted a correction!

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: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:14:10 GMT

In article <9301092018.07@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>>Note how Kelly avoids the question and attempts to change the subject.
>>Can Kelly show some old posts where people suggest that "there should be
>>no laws governing the sale of weapons"?  Or is Kelly confusing "no laws"
>>with "fair, effective, non-intrusive, non-abusable laws"?
>
>Define "fair, effective, and non-intrusive".  Obviously, all laws can be
>abused.

*Gasp* Laws can be *abused*???? And you want to make *more* laws????

Congrats, you once again avoided the question, and changed the
subject.


-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: googs@pravda.webo.dg.com (Joe Gugliemino)
Subject: Re: What Problem Is Supposed To Be Solved, Here? (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 07 Jan 93 13:50:09 GMT
	<ATAYLOR.93Jan5133412@gauss.nmsu.edu> <9301061141.17@rmkhome.UUCP>
Organization: NSDD/ONSD, Data General Corp., Westboro, MA

[] Regarding Re: What Problem Is Supposed To Be Solved, Here? (Was: Dressed for Rape);
[] rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

 rk> And according to the newspapers, specifically the Boston Globe and the
 rk> Middlesex News, the state attorney general's office has released statistics
 rk> that show that women are more in danger from being killed by husbands and
 rk> boyfriends than any other circumstance.  This statistic must be fairly
 rk> accurate if the police chief's association of Massachusetts has publicly,
 rk> in print, stated that they are willing to be lenient about giving gun
 rk> permits to women who have domestic violence related court orders in effect.
I saw an article in last Sunday's Boston Globe saying how violent crime
on women by ex-SO's was on an increase.  It was based on hokey stats.
Although the paper has already hit the recycle bin, a VERY rough
representation of the stats would be something like this:

Year  Total Violence    Attrib    Domestic   Domestic 
      on Women          Known     Cause      Rate

1991   48               24        12         50 %         
1992   24               12         8         75 %

(NOTE:  These are not the real numbers, but the illustrate their
argument)

Based on these numbers the Globe argued that violence on women was up,
and that they thought revoking firearms permits of ANYBODY that has been
served a restraining order was a proper action.

A couple of notes that the Globe didn't mention:

1.  Absolute violence against women was down by a lot.
2.  Domestic violence against women was down by a lot.
3.  In some divorce procedings, restraining orders are matter of course
    to gain legal advantage, and have no relation to "potential
    violence" by either party.
4.  Not all the violence was done with firearms.

While I'm not saying that violence will go away, I think you have to
carefully watch the arguments put forth to restrict RKBA.  They are
often flawed.  On the other hand, the fact that Chiefs might be more
lenient to ANYBODY is a step in the right direction...
--

                             Later,

                             Joe Gugliemino

(new address)
       |
       V
googs@pravda.webo.dg.com             Voice: (508) 870-6318
Joe_Gugliemino@dg.com                      Phone messages routinely routed
Data General Corp., Westboro, Ma.             to the nearest black hole...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1idauoINNt9a@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:37:24 GMT

In article <1idauoINNt9a@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C.
D. Tavares) writes:

   Not to mention Batman (who is currently stumping for the anti side
   in Virginia, at any rate).

Au contraire, mon bear.

At the public hearing last Saturday in Fairfax, Batman appeared in
costume.  He stated that he was in favor of the law, and that this
included the Constitution.  He repudiated the lies told on his behalf
by Time-Warner.

The delegates on the podium laughed their heads off.  The highly
technical, closely reasoned comic book (Good God!!) was defused as any
kind of argument.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:51:33 GMT

In article <9301051937.44@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>>Second, you believe wrongly.  The only change would be a dramatic increase 
>>in good manners and a decrease in police harassment.
>
>
>I wonder how this would be treated in the workplace.  I suspect that
>companies would be able to ban guns from the premises.  So you leave
>your gun out in your car for the crooks.
>

Your arguments are very disjointed.

As far as workplaces are concerned, they have no need to know if I'm
carrying or not.  If it's a big problem, and enough people are
carrying I'm sure some type of secure storage could be arranged.  If
not, then a responsible gun owner would have a good heavy steel lock
box somewhere in the car bolted down and concealed.  In a parking lot,
few crooks have the time or inclination to start dismantling a car,
the few parking lot car thefts generally are of the break a window,
rip out the stereo, and grab anything of value that is readily
apparent.  Listen Rick, you can keep manufacturing all this you want.
We can sit here and manufacture "what ifs" all day.

Has anyone else out there gotten the impression that Kelly is an AI
undergoing a Turing style test?  

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Subject: Re: This organ donating thread
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 4 Jan 93 11:02:44 CST

Everyone makes money on the organ donation except the donor or donor's family.
It is illegal to sell the organs.  But the doctors and hospitals make money through
the surgeries needed.

The solution is simple.  Allow people to sell their organs.  Pay people for the
right to take their organs when they die.  

 
sean rutledge     "The computer can be a dipper with which to ladle
sean@cae.wisc.edu     out words of truth from a vast ocean of great
                         mysteries...."  Ikuro Choh, Digital Meditation
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:42:50 GMT

In article <9301092258.38@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>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.

Really?  So, if we change the cocaine laws so that legal purchase
requires a fingerprint, the dealer down the street will stop selling
to anyone with cash?  The kid next door who's growing pot will
be stopped by a similar law on marijuana?

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: communists + anarchists in the NRA
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:23:29 GMT

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

>On behalf of my fellow pro-RKBA liberals, I fart in your general direction!

	Let it be known that Conservative RKBA members will be standing
by Don, gun in hand if necessary.  We don't go for terrorism over here.
Besides, Don's a pretty cool guy, and politics are never worth friendship.

< 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
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Carrying in San Francisco and in general 
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:52:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.200933.6461@leland.Stanford.EDU> kato@leland.Stanford.EDU (Daniel William Roth) writes:
}A friend of mine, who is a police officer in San Francisco, told
}me that it is legal for a citizen to carry an unconcealed firearm in
}San Francisco.  It is illegal, however, to carry bullets.
}
}Now, I know this guy to exaggerate a lot, so does anyone else on
}the net know if this is true?  ...

Technically, under an ancient law nobody's bothered to repeal yet, it's
legal to openly carry an _unloaded_ handgun.  It's also damn stupid.
There are few things less useful or more dangerous to their possessor than
an openly carried, unloaded gun.

}... Also, how would I go about learning
}the gun laws of any particular state (California at the moment) and
}locality?

For details of California law, contact the California Rifle & Pistol
Association.  Their brochure "Know Your California Gun Laws" is available
at many gun shops and ranges.  The NRA can also supply you with overviews
of gun laws in all 50 states.

}... why are most police officers against
}the idea of civilians carrying weapons?  ...

All of the street cops I've talked to about it are in favor of honest
citizens carrying guns _with proper training_.

}Now I don't want to carry a gun with me all the time.  But I'd surely
}like to do so when I go to San Francisco or San Jose.  And I don't
}see why I shouldn't be able to.

For now, because that's how your duly elected state legislators voted.  If
you don't like it, it's up to you as a voting citizen to do something
about it.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                "If you can't stand solitude,
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483  perhaps others find you boring
Santa Monica, CA  90405                        as well."  -- Mark Twain
From: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Who is more affluent and better educated than average?
Keywords: TIME says: NRA Members
Date: 8 Jan 93 04:36:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T

Negating the standard media portrayal of NRA members as buffoons, rednecks 
and bloodthirsty killers, writers at TIME magazine (1) found that:

"Though the group may boast its share of heavyset hunters with rifle
racks in their pickups, typical members come from a more domesticated 
breed: white suburban men - only 3% are women - somewhat more affluent 
and better educated than the American norm."

Do you think it hurt their fingers to type the last part?

Brian Leary

(1) TIME, January 29, 1990, page 18
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:47:53 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301092258.38@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> >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.

"Sorry, senor, but before I am allowed to let you take these guns out of
Colombia, I am required to take your fingerprints under the laws of your
home state.  It's just a formality, since I am going to sell you the guns
anyway <big grin>."
-- 

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: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini)
Subject: Re: Traveling with a gun
Reply-To: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: High Energy Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:14:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.065611.21174@mtu.edu>, pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.103304.23247@news.cs.indiana.edu> "John Simmons" <simmonsj@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>In article <C0EK1t.Hw1@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>>>For the most part, but they [Michigan] will allow me to use my Indiana permit
>>>there.
>>
>>I've often wondered about this: do states recognize each other's carry
>>permits?  Do all (doubtful)?  Do some (maybe)?  How does one find out?
>>
>>I've heard it said that some states will not even allow police from
>>other states to carry while visiting their jurisdiction.
>
>This is ludicrous. The constitution REQUIRES them to recognize the
>laws and proceedings of other states.
	
	And the constitution requires that congress pass no law
	funding the military for more than two year, and . . . 


	The 'privlidges and immunities' section you are reffering
	to has been changed into a very strange beast over the
	years by S.C. decisions. It's one of the things
	I'll be looking into in the future.
-
*1110 W. Green/Urbana IL 61801/217-333-0505/cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Statistical Analysis
Organization: none
	<LAMBERT.93Jan5005012@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1993Jan4.192252.2346@mtu.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:12:26 GMT

>>>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:22:52 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:

>> > degree of freedom: "The number of variables determining the state of a
>> >                     system to which arbitrary values can be assigned".
>> 
>> > Gee, that doesn't sound like what *you* used, Tim...  It sounds more
>> > like the number of variables required to span the space (you must span
>> > the space, if you wish to completely determine a system's *state*)
>> 
>> So you don't understand the definition.  It does describe what I used.
>> I refer you to any elementary statistics book for an explanation.

> Only Lambert could misinterpret the definition given above.  Q1: How
> many variables are required to completely determine the "state of
> your system"?  Q2:  How many "degrees of freedom" does this imply?

Yes, I can see you don't understand.  Look in a statistics text, for
Heaven's sake!

>> Perhaps you will find the "Academic Press Dictionary of Science and
>> Technology" easier to understand:
>> 
>> degree of freedom: ... _Statistics_ the excess of
>> 		   the number of data points over the number of
>> 		   parameters. 

> What do you conclude from your definitions?  What are you trying to
> say?  You claim that neither definition which you posted applies...

That when discussing crime statistics the definition above is the
appropriate one.  This also happens to be the number of data variables
that can be assigned arbitrary values while keeping the fitted
parameters the same.

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgiveness
Keywords: TIME, pleading
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:45:49 GMT

In article <viking.725784589@vincent2.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

|> 	Consider me your "inside source," for Time, Inc.; I'll be
|> most proud to provide my own editorial comments on this new policy
|> of theirs, if it even exists.  They have 40 weeks at most to
|> convince me, and they know it.  It was indicated that the first issue
|> in January will contain an editorial note concerning this roasting
|> they recieved from former subscribers.

I'd like to see that editorial note.

Incidently, for those postage paid mail guerillas in the audience, Time-Warner,
in their latest tacky mailing on books about serial killers and other sensational
slimeballs, has a postage paid postcard to send back.

The kicker is, they've also included a return merchandise label on the same piece
of cardboard, so you can "return the first volume if you don't like it."

Attaching this label to a 70 pound box of rocks will result in them paying a fair
slug of fourth class return postage, and is 100% legal.

Be sure to include a note telling them *why* you are doing this.  Nothing like a
little legal monkeywrenching to start the New Year...

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns