HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:58:37 GMT

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>>  or ranges offerings.  The decision to gun-proof your kids, or be your
>>  own best friend is purely personal, just like your First Amendment
>>  rights.

>If a kid kills someone in Arizona with a gun do the parents take the
>rap?

	I don't know.  Do they in Mass?  Are the laws different?
Are these differences a good or bad thing in your opinion?

	How is it relevent to the discussion?
I'm not even arguing with you, it just seems like you do a lot
of topic jumps.

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: The NRA will always be right wing.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:34:09 GMT


|The NRA would do well to actively recruit gays as well as women, blacks,
|hispanics and a diverse population. It would help against the liberal
|rich white + so-called "black leaders for civil rights" who seem to
|represent the anti-gun faction. 
 
I have _NEVER_ seen an NRA advertisement in the Chicago Defender, which
is a nationally famous black oriented newspaper. The paper's editorials
and columnists parrot the standard anti-RKBA rhetoric of the general
news media; however, I see gun shop ads in the back regularly...

I've never personally met an anti-gun black person, and thats from
elementary school through junior collage.

It's a real mistake for NRA not to take the fight to the inner city, and
directly into the strongholds of the Democratic Party. What's needed are
minority faces spreading pro-gun, pro-self-defense, pro-libertarian ideals
in minority comunities.

Maybe Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun wouldn't be so fast to accept HCI support,
maybe Rep. Mel Reynolds wouldn't be so fast to screw gun makers, or Rep.
Bobby Rush, the treacherous former Black Panther Defense Minister who
advocates gun bans for blacks, maybe they wouldn't be so fast to parrot
the news media/HCI lines _IF_ large numbers of blacks were willing to
speak out for their own rights and be willing to vote AGAINST the anti-
RKBA folks. Better still would be if such minority-based pro-gun 
organizations could exert influence at the lower levels of political
parties to demand candidates who will advocate the defense of their
civili liberties instead of parroting HCI.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: pro-gun TV?
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:22:35 GMT

In article <csjohn.726251662@watson.mtsu.edu> csjohn@watson.mtsu.edu (J Wallace) writes:

>This is what I call throwing you a bone.

	Yeah, the bone that's calcium free :(

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: blake@nevada.edu (Rawlin Blake)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:20:28 GMT

In article <ARCHER.592.726185072@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
>Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:04:32 GMT
>In article <1993Jan1.205518.17352@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!gatech!udel!wupost!spool.mu.edu!clark!henson!n9020351
>>From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
>>Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
>>Message-ID: <1993Jan1.205518.17352@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
>>Organization: Western Washington University
>>References: <1992Dec28.012227.18236@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <9212301448.43@rmkhome.UUCP> <1992Dec31.011711.24829@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP> <1hvjpgINN1o3@transfer.stratus.com>
>>Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:55:18 GMT
>>Lines: 16
>>cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>
>>>Well, let's see.  Two months ago, a state police officer stopped a man
>>>for speeding.  The man's target permit became visible as he offered his
>>>license, and an illegal search of the car followed.  The police found an
>>>expensive pistol belonging to the man's mother.  They determined that he
>>>was not on his way to a sporting event, so they confiscated the pistol
>>>and charged the man under Bartley-Fox.  Bartley-Fox says specifically
>>>that you cannot be charged under it if you have ANY license to carry
>>>(although the police can then revoke your license).  Despite this, the
>>>judge ignored the law and convicted the man.  Also, they did not return
>>
>>
>>	Why didn't he ask for a jury trial?
>>
>>JD
>The same reason most of us don't.
>
>"If you cop to the misdemeanor and leave your gun with us, we won't 
>procescute on the felony charge.  If you don't cop a plea, we'll go for the 
>felony conviction and ask for the maximum sentance.  You have more to lose 
>than we do.  What'll it be?"
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

So, why didn't the *mother* demand her gun back after the plea bargain?

After all you cannot legally bind another's property!

O, yeah I forgot, the police studied Hitler's tatics in school too :-(
---
Rawlin Blake    blake@nevada.edu

No news is bad newsreader :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Concealed carry in Tn, etc (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 04:57:27 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>>Except in Kennesaw(spelling?), Georgia.  But I do believe strongly in
>>home defense, although I believe that the best home defense weapon is
>>a shotgun.

>       To the best of my knowledge, Kennesaw did not require those who, for
>some reason, would not use a gun (religion, ethics, etc.) to own one.  It 
>was more symbollic than anything else.

It was symbolic but it had the real effect of telling the bad guys that
not only are guns in the home legal, they are officially endorsed by
the city government.  The impact on the crime situation in Kennesaw
was very real.  The local paper (Kennesaw is about 3 miles away) did
an update on the situation there awhile back.  Crime, particularly
burglarlies, went down and has stayed down.  This despite Kennesaw
being the highest growth area of the state for the last few years.

>Gun ownership in East Tennessee is quite high.  Very high in many 
>places.
>It is illegal, according to state law, for a civilian to carry a 
>firearm either open or concealed.  (It's a misdemeanor.)  

>        People do it anyway.

>        Clear enough? 

Yup.  As an East Tennessean a *long* ways from home (sigh), I can 
verify that fact.  I know many more people back home who carry
concealed than I do down here in Georgia where it is legal.  The 
penalties in most areas outside the Big 3 (Nashville, Knoxville and Memphis)
is so trivial as to be an annoyance.  As a police chief friend once
said to me in answer to my question of how to carry legally, "If 
your life is worth no more than the $50 fine it costs to get caught,
then worry about the legalities; otherwise just do it."  The only
effect I've seen is that since the cop that catches you carrying will
often add the gun to his private collection, most people I know carry
relatively cheap weapons.

>>>       Come visit Knoxville.  You won't actually see people carrying 
>>>guns here, either.  :-)       
>>
>>So you're saying that a lot of people just carry concealed weapons,
>>no matter what the laws say?

>       Bingo.  Give the man a cigar.  That's exactly what I said.  But then,
>Tennesseeans seem to take their state government even less seriously than 
>most people.

Boy's kinda slow, huh?  Yeah, we tend to ignore those nuts over in
East Arkansas, er, I mean Nashville.  They occasionally steal a bit of
our money and call it "taxes" but otherwise, they are pretty much
ignored.

Hey Dave, whatcha wanna bet this guy's gasping for breath at the thought
that we'd actually *ignore the LAW*  :-)

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Always wear your safety equipment, kiddies.
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:58:03 GMT

Rick Kelly writes:

When you were living in Georgia, how often did you have to pull a gun and/or
shoot at somebody?

(David Veal) queries:

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?

To which Rick Kelly responds:

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 always where a seatbelt.

And is in turn answered with:

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

And finally (thank heaven...) Rick rebutts:

Ok.  If shootings in my community were happening with the same frequency 
as car accidents, I would probably be damn sure to arm myself every time
that I left the house.  

	Gee, uh... Rick...  umm... does this mean that since I live in a place 
	where the drivers are actually quite safe, that I should NOT wear my
	seat belt whenever I get in  my car?  

	Your reply, I am sorry to say, was devoid of any sense.  Crime, just 
	as auto accidents, can happen ANYWHERE at any time (OK a car accident
	ain't likely on the 86th floor observation deck of the Empire State
	building, but I believe my point is sufficiently clear).  Where does
	one draw the line between being reasonable in their precautionary
	measures and paranoid?  I believe each person must decide that for
	themselves and indeed has that right to do so.

	If a person wishes to go armed everywhere they go, that is their
	decision and their business.  Once they act inappropriately with
	with their weapons, then it becomes the concern of others, but not
	until then.  Otherwise we could justify stopping any person any place
	at any time and arresting them because they "might" become violent.
	This is, of course, crap.

	If a person wishes to wander the streets unprotected, in a daze and
	wearing a neon sign that says "Rob me, rape me, kill me"  that, too, 
	is OK with me.

	-Andy V.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 12 Jan 1993 19:36:11 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <DLB.93Jan12103010@fanny.wash.inmet.com>, dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
> Mr. Tavares's articles are usually of the highest quality.  This one
> startles me.

>    > Ah, but if you are carrying an illegal weapon, then you are a criminal.
> 
>    Nope, sorry.  It's a civil, not a criminal, infraction -- like a
>    traffic ticket.
> 
> Huh?  Traffic tickets, like any other summons, are criminal matters...

Well, maybe this is a per-state thing.

I have here in front of me (blush) an old ticket for "40-45 in a 30
zone.  It's checked "ALL CIVIL INFRACTIONS" and reads, "All of the
violations with which you are charged are civil infractions... If you
fail to return this citation to the court within 20 days... you will
lose your right to a hearing and your license to operate and your
registration will be subject to suspension without further hearing...
You will become subject to comtempt proceedings and the issuance of
an arrest warrant, all as provided by law."

Of course, there is also a box for "CRIMINAL COMPLAINT" which I assume
they use for things like drunk driving.  Clearly you can get a criminal
traffic ticket, but I've never had any experience with that.  From the 
front of the ticket, it's evident that plain "speeding" (alone) can 
never be marked as a criminal matter.

I don't remember whether the original poster said that carrying an
unlicensed weapon was a misdemeanor or not.  If he did, I was in error 
to say it was a civil infraction.  I can't find it right now because of
the state of my newsreader files.

None of the above should be construed as legal advice, because I don't
write tickets -- I just get em.
-- 

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: "John Simmons" <simmonsj@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveling with a gun
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:32:54 -0500

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.
-- 
John Simmons (Sailor)                 + simmonsj@cs.indiana.edu
Indiana University has not approached + There are people in this world who do
me about adopting my opinions,        + not love their neighbor, and I hate
but I'm willing to negotiate.         + people like that!  -- Tom Lehrer
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Criminals And Guns (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 23:56:46 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301061620.58@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> >	Note also that there is *no* legal way for the average 
> >	Washington, DC resident to buy a handgun, yet the criminals
> >	in that Congress-run city seem to have no problems whatever
> >	in obtaining them. 
> 
> And it won't change until John Hinckley is long forgotten.

Crapola.  John Hinckley was simply one of a series of temporary
rationalizations for a movement that long preceded him.

You might be interested to learn that James and Sarah Brady -- the
HCI spokespeople -- own a handgun.  They purchased it because Jim
was, for at least six years, "preoccupied with the notion that John 
Hinckley would somehow come after him again," and he "wanted to be 
sure he had a gun to greet Hinckley with." (This is from Brady's
autobiography, so I'm not making this up.)

Now keep this in mind: John Hinckley never knew Jim Brady from Adam.
He was out to shoot Ronald Reagan -- Jim was just a random bystander.
If Hinckley does get out, sick or sane, looking up Jim Brady is not
even going to be on his list of priorities.  

Brady's fear of Hinckley is, to anybody OTHER than Jim Brady, clearly
subjective, unrealistic, and illogical.  Note also that Jim has been
treated for mental impairment and psychological trauma.  Yet he owns 
a gun, out of a personally-felt (however unrealistic) fear of attack 
at the hands of a criminal whom he expects will ultimately be 
inadequately handled by the criminal justice system.

And, you know, I don't begrudge it to him one damn bit.

It's too bad he's not egalitarian enough to allow US to own guns for 
the SAME DAMN REASONS.
-- 

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: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Flag burning and term limits
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:00:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.223425.3190@cbnewse.cb.att.com> random@cbnewse.cb.att.com (David L. Pope) writes:
>> what's-his-name in Colorado (sorry, I forget who Neal Knox said it
>> was) by ragging on his vote to protect flag burning, it wasn't
>> sincere,                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I give up, how am I supposed to dispose of my old, wind torn flag?
>In Scouts, we were told that the only 'honorable' way to accomplish
>this was through burning, followed by burial of the ashes. It seems
>
don't worry, burning the flag *is* the correct way of disposing
of it.  the difference is whether the burning is in private vs.
in public, as a display of contempt.  in any event, the SC has already
ruled this that flag-burning is protected speech.

drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary)
Subject: The NRA: the most consistently truthful and reliable lobby
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:26:46 GMT
Keywords: Library Journal says NRA tied with ALA for number 1

The following tidbit appeared in the Sept. 15, 1988, "Alarums and
Diversions" column of the LIBRARY JOURNAL.

"A highly placed library source in Washington, D.C. told
A&D that the American Library Association lobby and the
National Rifle Association lobby are the only ones whose
information was considered consistently truthful and reliable
by legislators.  We will not even consider the 'strange bedfellows'
variations possible to that remark."

How about that?

Brian Leary

Quote reproduced in the American Rifleman, November 1988, page 7.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:43:18 GMT

In article <4154@master.CNA.TEK.COM> richa@grizzly.CNA.TEK.COM (Grizzly Amber) writes:

>On boycotting Time-Warner,  note that one of their products is a
>sportsman's magazine (Outdoor Life?) that appears to contradict
>Time's stand on gun issues.
>
>Does Time-Life / Time-Warner have an anti-gun stand, or is it
>just Time Magazine?

       Political stands of major corporations usually does not preclude them
from making a buck ... and then blaming somebody else for it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary)
Subject: 1.2 Million Handgun Defenses per year
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:02:36 GMT
Keywords: Kleck's estimates range from 600,000 to 1.2 million

In his book Point Blank, Kleck uses a number of polls to estimate the
number of defensive uses of guns per year.

Hart Poll, 1981, 644,000 handguns defenses per year(1) 
Mauser Poll, 1990, 691,000 gun defenses per year(2) 
Field Poll (California), 1978, 1.2 million handgun defenses per year(3) 
Time/CNN Poll, 1989, 908,061 handgun defenses per year(4) 

Kleck talks about problems with surveys, but states that the surveys 
probably tend to underestimate gun defenses due to recall failure.

What about that estimate of only 80,000 defensive uses per year from 
the National Crime Survey?  According to Kleck:

"One survey that almost certainly is not adequate for estimating the total
number of defensive gun uses is the National Crime Survey.  Respondents in
that survey are not asked about defensive actions unless they first give
an affirmative answer to screener questions asking about victimization
experiences in general."  Kleck then goes on to talk about types of
defenses undercounted in the NCS. (5)

Brian Leary

(1) Gary Kleck, Point Blank, Aldine De Gruyter, 1991, page 106
(2) Kleck, page 107
(3) Kleck, page 467
(4) Kleck, page 468
(5) Kleck, page 110
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Identifying felons (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 10:42:14 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

In article <1993Jan8.134826.18087@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>
>You know, this whole thread started me thinking. If we turned
>this about and proposed the following, I wonder how many of
>the pro gun control far-left-wing crowd would approve:
>
>- When someone is *convicted* of a felony, confiscate their
>  drivers license or state ID card. 
>
>- Issue them a new drivers license or state ID card with a
>  big red circled gun with a slash through it. Actually,
>  there would be no need to issue the drivers license
>  or state id card until their release from prison.

Our state gun organization promoted an idea last year of afixing a 
holographic symbol on the rear of our photo-ID driver's licenses
for anyone eligible to own a gun.  The holographic symbol would be 
difficult to forge, would be on the reverse of the license so no
vendor not needing to see it would see it and would solve once and
for all the bleat that ineligible people buy firearms at retail.

NRA opposed us and instead rode shod over us in promoting the instant
background check that almost passed.  The state didn't want to do it
because it would be "too much work."

My conclusions are a) I don't know what the NRA advocates anymore and
b) no one really gives a shit about keeping firearms out of the hands
of felons; all this talk is a charade of smoke'n'magic to try
and camoflage the real intent - gun confiscation and banning.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:48:37 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> > A legal search is declaring someone is under arrest, and then 
> > reading them the Miranda warning before the search is conducted.
> 
> 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?"

here's another:

"Do you mind if we search your car?"
"I'd rather you didn't."
"If you don't allow us to search your vehicle that's probable cause;
 Everybody out..."

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data  `,`
`,`  is Life -- The Player's Litany, from _The Long Run_ by D.K. Moran  `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns