HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:09:10 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats

In article <C0Fruz.30J@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>In article <viking.726306933@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>
>>	In any event, comp.risks provides much more insight as to how
>>such a system can cause false information to be collected against an
>>individual.  I suspect the incident rate would be incredibly low, but
>>when implementing such a system it is imperative that the computer not
>>be seen as de-facto evidence of a person being a criminal, but rather
>>that the person deserves a bit more checking upon, perhaps by an
>>appeals process.  The gun dealer is out of the loop here, but the
>>sheriff's office and the courts offer one (albeit biased) appeals
>>route that might be considered.
>>
>>	Just a word of paranoia...
>
>That's why I included the right to challenge the report.  Don't worry,
>I'm not proposing such a system.  Just trying to see if Kelly would be
>satisfied with it.  Since I, a person with a minimum of shop training,
>can relatively easily build many different types of weapons I think
>that restrictions on what you can buy, and who can buy them are kinda
>stupid.  I think age is the only relevant data a store owner should be
>concerned with.  I also think that the only people who should *not* be
>allowed to carry in public (aside from the previous age restriction)
>should be the seriously mentally unstable, and convicted violent
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>felons.  What's really scary is the fact that we let those people
 ^^^^^^^
>*drive*. 

However, you must have a foolproof way of determining this.  The only
way at present is fingerprints, FBI records, and police/court records.

>Personally, if I ever get injured by an assailant
>in a place that restricts my right to bear firearms, I'm suing the
>place.  I don't have any illusions about winning, but since it seems
>to be the only way one can make point these days. . .  Might even
>include HCI in the suit.

You might win.

There have been cases where criminals have successfully sued homeowners
who shot them and caused permanent injury.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rielly_s@apollo.hp.com (Stephen M. Rielly)
Subject: Mass. Non-Resident Permits
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 11:23:59 GMT
Distribution: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns 

With regard to non-resident pistol permits from 
the Commisioner of Public Safety. I obtained one 
last year but the wait was 24 weeks long. They claim
that they are extremely understaffed at the firearms 
records division. So no sooner that I get it I have
to reapply again, given it only lasts one year.
Contrast that with Maine's non-resident license, 
renewal was only a two week wait.

-Steve

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary)
Subject: Kennesaw, 1986: Burglary Still Down 85%
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:19:24 GMT
Keywords: gun ownership required - residential burglary rate drops

The residential burglary rate in Kennesaw, Georgia dropped sharply
after a city ordinance requiring heads of household to keep at least one
firearm in their homes was passed.  The law passed early in 1982.  
In 1986 the rate was still down 85% compared to 1981. (1)

What about that study that shows no drop in burglary in Kennesaw?
Well strangely, the authors used the total burglary rate not the
more relevant residential burglary rate.  In another strange error(*),
the authors did not account for Kennesaw's seventy percent population
increase over the period. (2)

Brian Leary

(1) Gary Kleck, Point Blank, Aldine De Gruyter, 1991, pages 136-137.
(2) Kleck, pages 136-137.
(*) Kleck's characterization
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Firearms article in Jan '93_The Atlantic_
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:56:14 GMT


|Certainly, why not?  A magazine writer (Ayoob, I think) recommends a 
|big-bore handgun loaded with blanks as a self-defense weapon for the
|blind.  Fine with me ... the victim can blast away, knowing he can't
|hurt anyone, while the perpetrator is wondering what the hell's going
|on, or is mightily surprised if he knows his victim is (supposedly)
|defenseless & unarmed.

Interesting; where did Ayoob make this recommendation?

Such a device would make one hell of a direct contact weapon; remember
that fool actor John Hexum ("Coverup") who put the .44Mag prop gun
to his head and terminated his life by pressing the trigger, causing
the combustion gases to push part of his skull into his brain?

[And caused the handgun control ghouls to use this as a Cause Celebre
by using Hexum's greiving parents as media props for the promotion
of their anti-RKBA activities.]

Hmm, I wonder if some manufacturer could make a blank firing "palm
pistol" firing a special rimfire cartridge with sufficient powder
to make it an effective contact weapon? Of course, this would some
the scum scurrying like rats to the legislatures to get new laws
passed to ensure the helplessness of the masses... HCI's media minions
would be busy at work on the Editorial and Op-Ed pages demanding an
end to these awful infernal devices of self-defense... Better that
a 1,000 people be mugged than a mugger be killed, because it is the
job of police in civilized nations to capture and prevent crime!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:01:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.163809.25475@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
>In article <9301092258.38@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>[snip]
>>>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.
>
>Has Kelly heard of "strawman purchases"?

  Oh come on now - no one would do this - it would be ILLEGAL!

--henry schaffer
From: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Can dishonorably discharged gays stay in the NRA?
Date: 10 Jan 1993 03:42:08 +1030
Organization: PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) - Anonymous Service
Reply-To: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: flash.pax.tpa.com.au


I thank Kirk Hays for a very informative posting which nevertheless
leads me farther away from his view.

>Politics makes strange bed fellows.  In case you hadn't noticed,
>anti-gunners in Congress aren't exactly buddy-buddy with the gay
>populace, either.

Actually, when I mentally list the Congresscritters who support gay
rights, the NRA is angry with every one of them.  Barbara Boxer.
Ted Kennedy.  Paul Simon.  Who are the others?

>Well, since I've never seen any other National organization, like the
>AMA, ADA, NEA, ACLU, or even HCI announce that "gays are welcome," I
>see no reason the NRA should be held to a higher standard.

A standard type of disclaimer for an organization that wants to 
convey tolerance reads:

Bowling Green Screen Door and Tent Pole does not discriminate on
the basis of age, sex, sexual orientation, race, or religion.

However, when I read what you quote...

>First and foremost, the NRA is you -- its members.  Millions of Americans
>representating a diverse contrast of age, sex, race and religion.

Obviously they're trying to be PC, but something is missing.
They welcome a diverse constrast of age, sex, dah-dah dah-dah, race,
and religion.  This type of phrase was one of the first vibrations that
my political antannae picked up when thinking about the NRA and gay
tolerance.

This is proof of nothing, but my antannae have good reception.

>The only persons excluded from membership are felons, ex-felons, and
>persons with a dishonorable discharge from the armed forces.

This is a lead worth pursuing and one I didn't think of.  You can be
dishonorably discharged from the armed forces solely for being gay.
Isn't it interesting that you might then find that the NRA has revoked
your membership.  If I were you I'd send a letter to the NRA asking
them to make exceptions in these cases.  I predict that the experience
will be as informative as it is unproductive.

Of course I'm not you.  You want me to stop my moaning and send you
e-mail non-anonymously so that I can do something about it.  I suspect
that it will cost me money and it won't work.  Besides, I don't like
the NRA.


--
** 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.grp@pax.tpa.com.au (post to grp)
anon.list@pax.tpa.com.au  (to mailing list about anonymous mailers)
anon.subscribe@pax.tpa.com.au         anon.unsubscribe@pax.tpa.com.au

For dialup Unix access phone +61-8-235-9010 - online registration.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Atlantic article (was: Re: Clinton's Intentions?)
Organization: Joe's Bar and Grill
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 04:30:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.191627.23073@amex-trs.com> skimmel@amex-trs.com (Steve Kimmel) writes:
>
>In this month's Atlantic Magazine is an article about a 15yr old kid in VA(?)
>who had his uncle purchase a cobray m-11 for him and subsequently took it to
>school and killed one teacher and wounded another.  Much of the article is
>devoted to explaining the gun trade and examining the dealer who sold the
>gun. The dealer was sued by the husband of the woman who was killed.  The
>author of the article applied for and was granted a FFL to, in his paraphrased
>words, insert himself deeper into the gun trade.  Plenty of scare phraseology
>aimed at the liberal intellectual readership.  

Yup.  Real interesting mix of decent reporting of what happened and a lot
of trashy sensationalistic scare images - plus some tired old lies thrown
in for good measure.  The author quoted the "study" that "proved" that
"assault weapons" were the guns of choice for criminals by counting BATF
trace requests.  He also described in exquisite detail how a 9mm round
picked a woman up off the ground and threw her back several feet.  Neat
trick, that.  He has convinced himself that the phrase "double tap" is a
euphemism for "shoot a man twice."

Sounds like the gun purchase in this case was an obvious strawman purchase
(obvious to the seller, that is) - the seller should be put away for a long,
long time. 

 -joe
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: This organ donating thread
Date: 6 Jan 1993 15:59:50 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu

pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

| peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
| >In other words, a lot of people will be a lot better off because you
| >are allowed to sell your organs.  And no one will be worse off.  What
| >exactly is the problem?
| >
| The problem is that the potential exists to allow creditors to force an 
| invasive surgical procedure to procure an asset that they are legally 
| entitled to.

You have taken great care in removing from my posting all the
qualifications I gave for the ability of creditors to claim a
living person's organs.

First, one _would_ not be able to claim organs as assets while the
owner was alive.  Second, one _may_ not be able to claim organs of
a (dead) owner who does not wish it.  Looking at the evolution of
English and American society and law, I think the first assertion
is certain.  For example, the trend has been away from debtors'
prisons and toward lenient bankruptcy.  Neither body nor an
overwhelming fraction of future labor can now be claimed:  why
would living organs be?  Whether the second statement is true,
however, I can not say.

Anyway, aside from societal traditions, whatever statutory law
that makes organ trade legal can conditionalize the hell out of
the transactions to allay your fears.

However, the right of trade of _anything_, on the terms of its
owner, should _never_ be restricted.  And what does each of us
own if she doesn't own her body?

Mike Peercy
peercy@chrc.uiuc.edu
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: I will only threaten the proven guilty.
Date: 12 Jan 1993 23:44:38 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1ivessINNnou@flash.pax.tpa.com.au>, anon.39@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

> Hi guys.  I used to be anon.526, now I'm not. 

A hose by any other name...

> In a way, yes.  I recognize that we live in a peaceful society.
> I would not point a gun at another human being unless he or she
> were guilty of the intent to harm me or my family or a third party.
> And in a peaceful soceity, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
> That is what I mean by "nearly limitless benefit of the doubt".

The question is, when that time comes, would you even have a gun to
point?  If you can't get a gun, or won't have a gun, it's no sweat
deciding whether or not to make use of it because you no longer have a
choice.

> Besides, I have never seen a "pro-gun" advocate of compassion towards
> criminals.

People who show compassion deserve compassion; people who show 
tolerance deserve tolerance; and people who show respect deserve 
respect.  Whatever is granted over and above that is suffrance, 
and counts as unearned charity.

> o How come I don't have any statistics?
> 
> Because I am not giving advice. 

No, you're stating opinions, and you cannot show that they are anything
other than uninformed opinions.

> On the other hand, I have never seen any statistics to demonstrate that
> my doctrine of non-confrontation results in a shorter life expectancy
> or higher burglary insurance, only statistics about those isolated
> experiences involving face-to-face confrontations with violent strangers.

Your "doctrine of non-confrontation?"  Do I assume this means that you
expect if you never get in anyone else's face, no one else will get into
yours?  If you believe this, you are natural selection waiting to happen.
I have some statistics about your chances of injury and death with an
"acquiescent" defense vs. defense with a gun, if that's what you mean.

> However, many people here have advised Rich Kelly that defending
> yourself with a gun is a good idea, and they have not addressed, with
> or without statistics, the possibility of making a criminal error when
> doing so.

As the owner of a Massachusetts pistol permit, Kelly has already gone
through at least one formal course on this topic.  Can you say the same?
-- 

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: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: 1.2 Million Handgun Defenses per year
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:35:02 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.93Jan12220125@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:02:36 GMT, oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) said:
>> "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."
>
>In other words, the NCS only counts defensive uses against crimes.

Wrong.  NCS doesn't get into defensive uses unless the victim thinks
that a crime occurred even if it was successfully self-defended
against.  As in "Have you been the victim of a crime?"  Someone who
successfully self-defended against an armed robber might well answer
"no".  They weren't a victim.  Yet, that's a self-defense against
crime, one that the NCS wouldn't ever find out about.

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum)
Subject: bye guys!
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:40:27 GMT

subject: see you later!
posted by: autonome forum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, looks like we achieved our purpose. Post one or two controverisal 
things and Net-rednecks grab their guns and start yelling. Well, no point in
us wasting our time at the Usenet site.

To keep up with our awesome left-radical news postings, just follow the
newsgroup misc.activism.progressive.

For communism and anarchy,

	autonome forum
  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     autonome forum: aforum@moose.uvm.edu
                          "solidarity is a weapon!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini)
Subject: Re: How many gays are there in the NRA?
Reply-To: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: High Energy Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:22:26 GMT

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

	Jeff Cooper is not a NRA board member. Try again.

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

	What are you basing this contention on? Your own twisted
	version of reality? If you have ESP, please tell me what
	my views are. 

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


	Then again, he might not. You don't know. You dont'
	care. You are a flaming idiot.

>
>But I see that you are a doubting Thomas.  Ask Neal Knox and Jeff
>Cooper and Leroy Pyle what they think.  Better yet, spread the word if
>you're an NRA member that you're gay (whether or not you actually are)
>and see what happens.


	I just spent a bit of time, and a rough count indicates that
	of the NRA members I know, about 10% are publically homosexual.
	

*1110 W. Green/Urbana IL 61801/217-333-0505/cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: tmi@netcom.com (Peter Alan Kasler)
Subject: Re: Carrying in San Francisco and in general 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:57:42 GMT

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

	Under California law, it is legal to openly carry a firearm in
a public place, so long as the firearm is unloaded. It is not illegal
to carry ammunition, in any manner, so long as none of it is in or
attached to a firearm.

	There is a new book just out called "Everything You Ever
Wanted To Know About California Gun Laws" that includes all relevant
statutes, plus comments, explanations, reality-oriented questions and
answers, a complete Table of Contents, and a full Index. It is
published in loose-leaf format to accommodate period updates as
changes in the law dictate.

	It can be obtained from Threat Management Institute for
$25.00, plus $4.00 S&H and Calif. Sales Tax. Send payment to TMI at
800 West Napa Street, Sonoma, CA 95476 and a copy will be shipped by
UPS within one week. There are plenty of copies in stock, with more
being printed from time to time, so unlike the "GLOCK" book (over
which we had no control as to availability for shipment), there will
be no delays in filling orders.

>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.

	Just because SF refuses to issue CCWs to it residents doesn't
mean that residents of other California counties cannot get CCWs
issued to them. Although it varies from county to county, with some
being quite reasonable and others just the opposite, now that LA shows
signs of coming around in response to the pending lawsuit, there may
be some relief in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, if you do
get a CCW from any county in California, it is good anywhere in the
state, even SF who doesn't issue to their own residents. (All this is
covered in detail in the above-mentioned book. [shameless plug]).

-- 
     Peter Alan Kasler                            Fax: 707-939-8684
     Threat Management Institute                Voice: 707-939-0303
     800 West Napa Street                     TMI BBS: 707-935-1713
     Sonoma, CA  95476                     Internet: tmi@netcom.com
From: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: What's on the membership form
Date: 10 Jan 1993 03:25:05 +1030
Organization: PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) - Anonymous Service
Reply-To: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: flash.pax.tpa.com.au


Several people have objected that it would be totally inappropriate for
the NRA to ask your sexual orientation on the membership
application/form/cribsheet/whatever.  Really you guys are making more
of this point than it's worth.

Of course the NRA doesn't ask you how much money you make on the form,
but they probably have a confidential estimate of how many people
with incomes of $50,000 are in the club.  Of course they don't ask you
your race, but they probably have an estimate for that statistic too.
And of course they don't ask you whether or not you are gay, but I
suspect that they have an estimate for how many gays are in the NRA:
Zero.  I suspect that they think the estimate is pretty good, even
though it's very bad in reality.  It's just a hunch, but there it is.

Take a look at the Boy Scouts.  They don't ask you whether you are gay
either.  But if they get wind of it by other means, watch out.


--
** 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.grp@pax.tpa.com.au (post to grp)
anon.list@pax.tpa.com.au  (to mailing list about anonymous mailers)
anon.subscribe@pax.tpa.com.au         anon.unsubscribe@pax.tpa.com.au

For dialup Unix access phone +61-8-235-9010 - online registration.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns