HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:19:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.014355.18095@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.111836.1813@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:

>>that the use of lethal force is *always* considered an extreme measure,
>>to be used only as an absolutely last resort.  Most, if not all, of the

>Oh sure Roberta.... like in the case of the guy that said he
>would kill for a penny; like in the case of the Terminator
>saying OZ should be nuked; like in the case of the guy who said he
>would attack the guy who tipped beer on me. There are none so blind...

...as those who continually take things out of context.  Go back and
re-read those postings, and try to comprehend the context, this time.

>>the stage of discussing guns, we have dismissed the other alternatives
>>as inadequate for the particular situation.

>Yes.... always the non-violent ways are dismissed. You live
>in a violent society. You know no better.

Always?  Come now, Davie, that's an extreme statement, even for you.  Note
my exact wording:  "inadequate for the particular situation."  Those
situations where peaceful resolution is adequate are not really appropriate
for talk.politics.GUNS.  Why not take a look at rec.guns?  You'll find
many of the same  people discussing when lethal force is justified, and
when it's not, as well as alternatives.  I should probably warn you,
though, it's a moderated group.  Unless your postings have some relevant
content, you likely won't be able to post there.

>>comments like "too many of the *male* posters here..."?  Many people post

>One can tell. 

Oh really?  You seem to have trouble even determining when someone is
being facetious;  how, then, can you ascertain anything about the person
behind the post?

---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                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: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: NRA billboards
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:18:53 GMT
Reply-To: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Distribution: usa
Organization: m4


 I wonder why the NRA doesn't use billboards to get its message across?

 Seems to me that several simple, carefully-chosen, public service messages
 on thousands of billboards along interstate highways and local commuter
 routes could help educate the public about the NRA and its goals.

 One good one might be the RKBA advertisement in the American Rifleman
 (March '91?), to give a sense of history and the intent of the BOR
 founders.

 Another might be to pair the 1st and 2nd Amendments on one billboard, then
 pair the 2nd and 3rd Amendments on another- sort of like the old
 "Burma Shave" advertisements.  The intent here would be to emphasize the
 2nd Amendment as "really" belonging to the BOR.  Too many times the 2nd
 is interpeted as an anomaly in "modern" times, but somehow, the 1st never
 is, even though they are both an expression of individual rights. 

 Yet another billboard might display something like the
 following (Eddie Eagle says):


                     Kids!

        When you see a gun, and nobody is around,
        remember these three rules:

           1) Stop! Don't touch it.
           2) Leave the area immediately, and
           3) Tell an adult.
From: thi@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Saigon Smuggler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Reasons to carry
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:40:35 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Information Systems Inc.

In article <52552@mimsy.umd.edu> sybok@m4-035-4.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>In article <52515@mimsy.umd.edu> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>#
>#A friend of mine who resides in MA specified "for any legal purpose"
>#and, after a bit of hassle with the authorities, got the permit issued
>#in those terms.
>
>I guess he wasn't in Cambridge, where anal retention is the name of the game
>insofar as issuing unrestricted (or self-defense) licenses is concerned.
>What part of the state does he live in?

A co-worker of mine lives in Acton MA and got his LTC for 'all lawful
purposes' without any hassle from the Acton PD.

-tt
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:52:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <1992Apr3.232219.8647@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):

> In article <1992Apr1.191304.8082@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
> >>Probably so.  I recently watched a film on TV in which even a Catholic
> >>priest and a communist mayor were waving guns around  -  "Don Camillo",
> >>it was called.  What a terrible example they were setting!
> >
> >Did you see "Pale Rider" with Clint Eastwood?  An EXCELLENT MOVIE about
> >a gunslinger who blows into town to clean it up; it turns out he's a priest.
> 
> Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
> a few Australian films, in order to see life in its fullest, and
> to get a more balanced perspective on the human experience.

I recommend:

Mad Max
The Road Warrior
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome(?)
Road Games
ANZACS
The Lighthorsemen
Gallipoli
Breaker Morant 

None of these films in any way portrays nor advocates violence in any way... 
NOT.

And those are just the ones which have received notice in the U.S.  Such
hypocrisy and deceit becomes you....



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
    <1992Apr4.121407.9275@ms.uky.edu> <susan.702534694@coombs>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:52:50 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
X-Bytes: 

susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>>db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

>>>>>out for a fight, gave me shove and when I didn't react, he poured
>>>>>a bottle of beer all over my head.
>>>>>I just ignored him and he was
>>>>>booed out of the park by the other picnickers. Non-violence
>>>>>is much more effective. Had I been a Terminator type maybe I
>>>>>would have shot him. The Christmas party would have been ruined, I
>>>>>would have spent years and years in jail..... instead we had a
>>>>>great party and I made lots of new friends.
>>>>

>>First of all, you must be pretty spineless to allow such acts to go
>>unpunished. I personally would have knocked the guy out (or teied).

>	Yep, rather proves my point now doesn't it?  Another of the boys
>who likes to talk tough.......


Talk is cheap. Pour something on my head and observe actions in progress.
Why didn't you respond to the rest of the letter? Too tough?
PS
Your signiture stinks too.
:)
Cheers!  (cough)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Aussies
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  9 Apr 92 23:24:07 GMT

Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer) writes:

>SM>From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
>SM>Date: 8 Apr 92 04:29:15 GMT
>SM>Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing
>SM>Message-ID: <32342@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
>SM>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

>In the course of reading the give-and-takes between the Australian and
>American posters it has occured to me that there may be a historical
>explanation for the difference in attitudes.

>Most of the American Forefathers were risk-takers who came to the New
>World to escape oppression -- being told what they could or couldn't do.
>They arrived in an untamed wilderness with no one to depend on but
>themselves.

>The Australians on the other hand, were forcefully removed to a penal
>colony against their will.  There they found themselves being controlled
>by their captors, who told them what they could do and what they
>couldn't do.  If they went along with the program they survived.  If
>they didn't they may not have.  It seems being taken care of by their
>captors has become institutionalized there.

	Oh, well, another American shows a total lack of comprehension
about conditions in colonial australia.  Tell me, do you think that the 
convicts were kept in nice stone prisons and under close supervision the
entire time they were serving their sentences?

	Do you believe that Australia is some sort of benigne piece of
countryside where fruit grew from the trees and animals layed down in front
of you so that you could slaughter them?  Do you think that the Kooris were
willing to simply sit still and see their land taken away from them?

	Australia and the people transported to Australia were everything
you said about America Clyde.  More so in some cases, its climate is much
harsher than the North American continent and it is much, much more
arid (its the driest continent in the world).  Remember, also a large 
proportion of those transported here were hardened city bred
criminals as well, so they were neither prepared or understand what farming
entailed (and most European farming practices were found to be outright
wrong for Australian conditions and had to be unlearnt fast).

	The major difference you don't allude to though, is that because of
the very nature of the shore on which they were marooned (no return from
transportation rememeber), Australians decided instead of competition to
ensure survival, that _co-operation_ was the way to go.  Co-operation has
worked for us for over 200 years.  Its allowed us to literally build a
nation from nothing in a much shorter time than your own. 

	Competition has done the same for yourselves, but at what cost?   




--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:29:50 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr6.173858.20604@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.232219.8647@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
>>a few Australian films, in order to see life in its fullest, and
>>to get a more balanced perspective on the human experience.
>
>I recommend Mad Max, The Last Wave, Breaker Morant, and Gallipoli.
>
>BTW - Which of these movies had the largest audience in Oz?
>
I believe _Mad_Max_ was the most popular of the ones you mention.

-- 
   "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: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Rape and Statistics
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:02:20 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Apr7004356@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 1992 22:05:00 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) said:
>> If the "question at hand" is really "the effect on the rape rate of
>> gun use by attackers and DEFENDERS", then why does Lambert include
>> rapes where the defender had no gun in his "proof" that with-gun
>> resistance doesn't work....
>
>I thought Andy's previous attempt to change the subject was unsubtle.
>This time he really takes the cake, starting a sentence with the
>current subject and crashing onto the tracks of another subject by the
>end, and misrepresenting my position in an attempt to muddy the
>waters.  (OK, OK, so its a mixed metaphor.)  One more time: defensive
>gun use has very little effect on the rape rate, no matter how well it
>works in the cases where it occurs, because it is very uncommon.

Again "the point" changes.  Unfortunately for Lambert, the new one
isn't any better than the old one.  (The earlier point was more
interesting, because we can have some effect on the methods people use
for self-defense.)

"Effect" is not determined by probability; it comes from perceived
COST, which is a function of both perceived probability and perceived
effect given that one is "unlucky".  People avoid lots of situations
where the objective chances of a bad outcome are fractions of a
percent, because they perceive that the cost is significant.

>> And with knife and unknown weapon are very close.
>
>To each other you mean.  Knives are 14% "better" than unarmed and guns
>are 21% "better", so a gun is a 50% more effective weapon than a knife
>for a rapist.

That's a dishonest measure of "more effective".  (X-Y)/(Z-Y) depends
on not only X and Z, but on Y, yet Lambert insists that it tells us
only about the differences between X and Z.  (The interested reader is
invited to look at how the value depends on Y given X and Z.  For
example, consider X = Z+7 and observe how Lambert's effectiveness
measure increases as Y approaches Z from below.)


>>   (I've repeatedly posted references to data contradicting Lambert's
>> "criminals will just start using guns more often if they think that
>> defenders are carrying" theory.  Yes, some do, but the overall
>> effect is different.)
>
>I guess I must have missed it.

Don't worry, I've posted it AGAIN.

>All I've seen is you twisting yourself in knots, arguing that a gun is
>not useful for self defence against someone armed with a gun.

Huh?  I claim that guns ARE useful for self-defense against someone
armed with a gun.  The only twisting here is on Lambert's side of
the pond....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 3 Apr 92 23:22:19 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr1.191304.8082@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>>Probably so.  I recently watched a film on TV in which even a Catholic
>>priest and a communist mayor were waving guns around  -  "Don Camillo",
>>it was called.  What a terrible example they were setting!
>
>Did you see "Pale Rider" with Clint Eastwood?  An EXCELLENT MOVIE about
>a gunslinger who blows into town to clean it up; it turns out he's a priest.

Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
a few Australian films, in order to see life in its fullest, and
to get a more balanced perspective on the human experience.

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:13:34 GMT
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr11.013907.17882@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <larryd.702886151@milton> larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:
>>...
>>>>> ... armed bodyguards ...
>>
>>The amusing thing in the entire Rushdie episode is he spent a good deal
>>of his time his prior to the Iranian threat expounding on how the
>>British government was fascist.  I suspect 1) he hasn't endeared himself
>
>I don't see anything amusing about this. Everyone has a right
>to the services of their government regardless of whether they
>voted for them.

  Will everyone who is in danger of being attacked be provided with
armed bodyguards?  If that service is available to all then I see
no inconsistency in Rushdie being provided these services.  However
if bodyguards are not provided to all, and the government prevents
people from effectively defending themselves, then inconsistencies
abound. 

  Where were the full time armed bodyguards when Dr. Chang needed
them?  Where are the full time armed bodyguards who should be 
protecting all these Australian women who are shot by their
husbands?
>
>>with his full-time bodyguards and 2) his perspective has changed.  Maybe
>>not...self proclaimed intellectuals are often fairly stupid.
>
>SR is not a self-proclaimed intellectual. You are
>obviously anti-intellectual.

  Wow - what an effective rejoinder!  Is he "obviously
anti-intellectual" because you disagree with him or because he is
amused by Rushdie?

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  7 Apr 92 00:58:56 GMT

langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston) writes:

>db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>sybok@m4-035-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>>>
>>>Did you see "Pale Rider" with Clint Eastwood?  An EXCELLENT MOVIE about
>>>a gunslinger who blows into town to clean it up; it turns out he's a priest.
>>
>>Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
>>a few Australian films, in order to see life in its fullest, and
>>to get a more balanced perspective on the human experience.

>    So of Mad Max, Crocodile Dundee, or The Man from Snowy River, which is
>    more of a "balanced perspective on the human experience"??

	None.  Try, "The Place at the Coast", "Malcom", "Proof", "Saltwood",
"Monkey Puzzle" or "Waiting".


--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: UK court approves use of shotgun
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:57:45 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <2056@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.072614.1767@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au 
>(David Bowman ) writes:
>> >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.
>> >
>> It takes two to fight!
>
>Under this reasoning, how many does it take to rape?  To steal?

It takes only one to rape. The other person is being assaulted.
It takes only one to steal, the other person is being robbed.
I really think you are being a bit silly.
>
>
>> No Australian or American has posted anything along
>> the lines of blaming the victim. I don't know why you keep saying it.
>> Maybe you think if you say it often enough, someone will believe
>> it.
>
>Uh huh.  It takes two to fight, sez you?

And I say it again. Happy?
-- 
   "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: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Watch out for this!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:59:49 GMT


In <2296@transfer.stratus.com> C. D. Tavares states:
[Earlier and current RKBA amendment deleted]

|I've seen this argument a zillion times, but I've never considered it
|worth using.  Why?  Because all it shows is what was on MADISON'S mind at
|the time.  Presumably, Madison proposed this text verbatim for inclusion.
|But it was NOT ACCEPTED by the other delegates.  Why? 

Because Madison was concerned with getting a RKBA provision passed,
and wanted to make it acceptible to all parties, including those
who were concerned with "militia" i.e. Pennsylvania majority.

| What arguments did
|they make against the specific wording?  The point is that the delegates
|watered down some very specific language to some very general language,
|and nobody has explained 1) why they felt it necessary; 2) whether there
|were solid philosophical disagreements from the rest of the delegates to 
|some of the concepts expressed in the original version.

See pages 53 through 59 of The Second Amendment and the Historiography 
of the Bill of Rights, under the section "Drafting the Federal
Bill of Rights," that appeared in the Summer 1987 edition of the 
Journal of Law and Politics.

It's interesting to note that there were twice the number of demands
for a RKBA provision in the BoR than were accorded freedom of speech;
clearly, having firepower was considered more important than mere
talk. "Language praising the militia had received much less support,
essentially having been appended to the right to arms clause in
Virginia and two following conventions."
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 3 Apr 92 23:35:26 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr2.133214.2390@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.015232.12184@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>> ...  all these whatifs.  ...
>
>  My city has a very good Fire Department, and we don't have all that
>many fires - certainly not enough to keep all those fire fighters
>busy fighting fires all day long.  What do they do for their normal
>work shifts?
>
>  They spend their time on "whatifs".  They clean and repair their
>equipment.  They undergo training.  They even train for high-rise
>fires and Hazmat disasters of the sort which have *never* occurred
>in this city.  They do inspections.
>
>  What a waste of time and effort - being concerned with all these
>"whatifs".  They shouldn't discuss "whatifs" and certainly shouldn't
>spend their time and the taxpayers' resources on "whatifs"!  Do I
>have this right?  
>
>--henry schaffer
>
>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"?

Well Henry my old mate, you make a good point. We have fire departments
to worry about what ifs. We don't expect each citizen to own a fire truck and
firefighting equipment. In much the same way we have police to worry about
what ifs on the criminal front.... your analogy does not help your case.

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.